Order : Petitioner Nos.1 to 9 are children and petitioner No.10 is wife of late Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan. He holds an extent of Acs.9.00 of land in Survey Nos.216/2 and 218/2 of Khairtabad Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, as an Inamdar. He submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (O.R.C.) under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1967 (for short "the 1967 Act'-). During the pendency of the application, he died on 24.07.1987. The petitioners herein came on record as his legal representatives and pursued the matter. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order, dated 15.07.1989, granting O.R.C. for 3642.93 square metres of land each, in favour of the petitioners. 2. The land is within the Urban Agglomeration of Hyderabad and is covered by the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act'). Since the holdings of the petitioners exceeded 1000 square metres, all of them filed individual declarations before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, respondent No.2 herein. The applications were processed and a common draft statement under Section 8(1), together with a notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued on 16.01.1992 by respondent No.2. It was mentioned that the petitioners are entitled to retain 1000 square metres each and that they are liable to surrender 2642.93 square metres each. Before any further steps could be taken in pursuance of the notice, dated 16.01.1992, respondent No.2 issued a revised draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act on 16.02.1994. It was mentioned that the District Collector, Hyderabad in his letter, dated 20.04.1992 stated that the order, dated 15.07.1989, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad issuing O.R.C. in favour of the petitioners is not regular. Taking that letter into account, respondent No.2 issued fresh notice to the effect that the entire land of Acs.9.00 is to be computed to the holdings of Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan and that he was entitled to retain only 1000 square metres of land and that the rest of the land must be surrendered to the Government. The notice was addressed to the legal representatives of Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan (died). Fareeduddin Khan and that he was entitled to retain only 1000 square metres of land and that the rest of the land must be surrendered to the Government. The notice was addressed to the legal representatives of Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan (died). This was followed by an order, dated 07.07.1994, under Section 8(4) of the Act stating that no explanation/objection was received for the draft statement, dated 16.02.1994, and that the entire land except to the extent of 1000 square metres is excess of ceiling limits. 3. The petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 against the order, dated 07.07.1994. The appeal was rejected on 27.01.2006. The petitioners challenge the same. They contend that there was absolutely no basis for respondent No.2 to compute the land to the holding of a dead person, that too, in the declarations filed by them i.e. the petitioners. It is also stated that the O.R.C. granted in their favour is in force and the orders impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained in law. They also complain that no notice was issued to them before the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act issued by respondent No.2 was revised. 4. Respondent No.2 filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The facts mentioned above are not controverted. It is, however, stated that as on the date on which the Act came into force, Mohd.Fareeduddin Khan was the owner and that he was entitled to retain one standard holding. It is urged that during the pendency of the proceedings, notices under different sub-sections of Section 10 of the Act were issued and possession of the land was taken. 5. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 committed serious irregularities and illegalities at various stages of the proceedings. He contends that once a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued, valuable right accrued to the declarants and it can be modified only after issuing notice to the affected parties. He further submits that there was absolutely no basis for respondent No.2 to compute the land to the holding of a dead person, that too, in the declarations filed by the petitioners herein. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment, on the other hand, submits that though the declarations were filed by the petitioners, the subject matter thereof was held by their ancestor i.e. Mohd. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment, on the other hand, submits that though the declarations were filed by the petitioners, the subject matter thereof was held by their ancestor i.e. Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan and the state affairs that existed as on the date on which the Act came into force, needs to be taken into account. 7. The Act came into force in the year 1976. Section 6 thereof mandates that any person, who holds land in excess of ceiling limits within the urban agglomeration, must file a declaration. Even where a person, who holds land in excess of ceiling limits, fails to file any declaration, the Special Officer is conferred with the power to require him to file declaration and process the same. 8. By the year 1976, Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan was only an inamdar in respect of Acs.9.00 of land, referred to above. His rights were to be crystallized only with the issuance of the O.R.C. His application submitted for that purpose was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. He died on 24.07.1987 before the O.R.C. was granted. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to file a declaration. 9. After the death of Mohd.Fareeduddin Khan, the petitioners came on record and pursued the matter before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. Through his proceedings, dated 15.07.1989, the Revenue Divisional Officer recognized the rights of the petitioners herein and granted O.R.C. in their favour in respect of one-tenth share each, of the land of Acs.9.00. 10. As law-abiding citizens, the petitioners filed declarations, under Section 6(1) of the Act, soon after they became entitled to hold the land within the urban agglomeration, in excess of ceiling limits, before respondent No.2. The latter processed the same promptly and issued a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act indicating that the petitioners are entitled to retain 1000 square metres of land each. For one reason or the other, the matter did not progress for a period of two years. On 16.02.1994, respondent No.2 (a different incumbent) issued a revised draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act. The basis for revising the draft statement is said to be a letter, dated 20.04.1992, issued by the District Collector, Hyderabad, alleging that certain irregularities have taken place, while issuing the O.R.C. by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. 11. On 16.02.1994, respondent No.2 (a different incumbent) issued a revised draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act. The basis for revising the draft statement is said to be a letter, dated 20.04.1992, issued by the District Collector, Hyderabad, alleging that certain irregularities have taken place, while issuing the O.R.C. by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. 11. To say the least, the action of the District Collector in addressing the letter was irresponsible. Firstly, he does not figure anywhere in the scheme of the 1967 Act. Secondly, if any irregularity has taken place, he ought to have directed his attention before the authorities concerned under the Act. He did neither, but has poked his nose in the proceedings that were pending under the Act where again he has no role to play. In the recent past, it has become a fashion or enterprise for the Collectors posted in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts to interfere in every possible matters. Respondent No.2 has meekly surrendered his powers and acted to the tune of the irresponsible Collector and has issued revised draft statement. 12. The attempt of the District Collector appears to be to grab the land, which is readily available. The fact that hardly within few months an order under Section 8(4) of the Act came to be passed, that too, ex parte, strengthens this impression. The manner in which the incumbent of respondent No.2, who issued revised draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act on 16.02.1994, is totally objectionable. He left every possible norm of adjudication to winds. At least, as a formality, to bring the legal representatives of a deceased person, respondent No.2 was under obligation to issue notice to the petitioners. There is nothing on record to disclose that neither Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan was required to file declaration nor his legal representatives were brought on record. The result is that the draft statement, dated 16.02.1994, and the order, dated 07.07.1994, are passed against a dead person. 13. Though the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act by itself may not crystallize any rights, it does give rise to several legal consequences. It binds respondent No.2 to stand by it, even if a declarant fails to submit explanation. Under no circumstances, he can deny what is mentioned in a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act to a declarant. It binds respondent No.2 to stand by it, even if a declarant fails to submit explanation. Under no circumstances, he can deny what is mentioned in a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act to a declarant. In case respondent No.2 wanted to revise the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act, he was under obligation to issue notice to the affected parties. Since no such notice was issued to the petitioners, revised draft statement, dated 16.02.1994, is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law. Secondly, the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, on the basis of the revised draft statement, dated 16.02.1994, is equally untenable. Respondent No.1, the appellate authority, did not take these aspects into account and has simply upheld the order, dated 07.07.1994, passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. 14. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that possession of the land was taken. Once it is held that the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act is illegal and invalid, the mere fact that the possession of the land was taken, does not make any difference. 15. Time and again, this Court held that every step under the Act must be meticulously followed and any deviation from it, would invalidate the proceedings. The reason being that the Act is expropriatory in nature. The declarations filed by the petitioners were mishandled and blatant illegality was committed at various stages. The possibility for this Court to remand the matter to respondent No.2 does not exist, since the Act itself has been repealed. 16. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 07.07.1994, passed by respondent No.2 and the order, dated 27.01.2006, passed by respondent No.1 upholding the same are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.