Judgment : 1. The 1st petitioner is owner of 960.67 square meters in plot No.A5 which is part of S.No.500 of Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, Rangareddy District, which comes under Hyderabad Agglomeration. The 2nd petitioner is purchaser of the said plot from the 1st petitioner. Previously, deceased husband of the 1st petitioner filed urban land ceiling declaration before the 2nd respondent and subsequently he died on 02.11.1997 as per certificate of death issued by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The petitioners are aggrieved by notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short, the Act) given on 22.12.2006 and notice issued under Section 10(6) of the Act in February, 2007 in the name of deceased husband of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners claim that they came to know about the said notices when officers of the respondents came to the land recently. Therefore, the petitioners approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari in respect of proceedings in File No.F1/949/76 and orders passed under Sections 9, 10(1), 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act. 2. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit contending inter alia that husband of the 1st petitioner was allowed retain an extent of 1000 square meters under section 4(1)(b) of the Act and it was provisionally determined that he holds surplus vacant land to an extent of 792.65 square meters. Draft statement under Section 8(1) and Notice under Section 8(3) of the Act were issued on 3.2.1978 and were sent for service by registered post with acknowledge due calling objections to the draft statement. It was acknowledged by the declaratnt on 13.10.1978. 3. According to the 2nd respondent as no objection was received within the stipulated period, final statement under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 25.2.1980 holding that the declarant holds excess land to an extent of 792.65 square meters. It was communicated by registered post with acknowledgement due and it was acknowledged on 4.3.1980. Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued and got published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette part-II dated 2.8.1981; and since there was no objection received, declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued and was got published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 14.10.1982. Subsequent to the year 1982, no steps were said to have been taken by the 2nd respondent under the Act. Subsequent to the year 1982, no steps were said to have been taken by the 2nd respondent under the Act. According to the 2nd respondent notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued on 22.12.1996 and it was served on 29.12.2006 by way of affixture as the declarant was not residing at the address given and order under Section 10(6) of the Act was passed on 13.2.2007 and possession was taken over by the Government on 13.3.2008. 4. The alleged proceedings under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act were subsequent to death of the declarant, who is husband of the 1st petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that without impleading legal representatives of the declarant and without serving the required notices and orders on the legal representatives and more particularly on the 1st petitioner after death of her husband, the proceedings under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act could not have been passed validly. From the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, it is evident that the Urban Land Ceiling authorities did not know about death of the declarant at all and the proceedings under Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act were taken behind the back of the declarant’s family members or the declarant’s legal representatives. Therefore, the proceedings under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act, which were said to have been taken during the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 are not binding on the 1st petitioner. 5. There is no dispute that Kapra village, where the petitioners’ property is located, is in the peripheral area of Hyderabad agglomeration. The said fact was admitted by the 2nd respondent in the counter. 6. The petitioner’s counsel placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.733 Revenue (UC.II) Department dated 31.10.1988 contended that the Government exempted vacant land to the maximum extent of AC.5.00 located in peripheral area of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration in excess of the ceiling limit from the provisions of Chapter-III of the Act. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.217 Revenue (UC.II) Department, dated 18.4.2000 was passed amending G.O.Ms.No.733 to the effect that exemption in G.O.Ms.No.733 does not apply where the government has taken over possession of the surplus land under section 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act from the declarants as on 31.10.1988. As pointed out earlier, in this case, till the year 2006, the proceedings under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act were not taken by the authorities concerned. As pointed out earlier, in this case, till the year 2006, the proceedings under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act were not taken by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the exemption in G.O.Ms.No.733 is applicable to the case of the declaration by the 1st petitioner’s late husband. 7. This court in Nalla Yakoob V. Govt. of A.P. Revenue (UC.II) Department 1992(2) ALT 473 held that there is general exemption granted under G.O.Ms.No.733 Revenue (UC.2) Department, dated 31.10.1988 and it does not contemplate making any application by any individual claiming the said exemption. This court observed as follows: “The liability to surrender the excess land has to be determined now in the context of G.O.Ms.No.733 Revenue (UC-2) Department, dated 31.10.1988 and not otherwise. This G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988 has been issued by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 20(1)(a) of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 enunciating a policy to grant exception of vacant land in the peripheral area as specified in column (3) of Schedule-I to the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 prescribing a maximum of 5 acres of land, that too, after making provision for roads, open spaces, hospitals and school. This is a general exemption granted not contemplating or making any application by any individual. This exemption is automatic, provided, two conditions are complied; namely (1) that the land is in peripheral area; and (2) that the maximum extent is five acres exclusive of the land set apart towards roads, open spaces, school and hospital.” 8. In that view of the matter, the notice dated 22.12.2006 issued under Section 10(5) of the Act and order passed on 13.2.2007 under Section 10(6) of the Act and the alleged taking over possession of the surplus land on 13.3.2008 are wholly without jurisdiction and ultravirus. 9. In the result, Rule Nisi is made absolute, allowing the writ petition and quashing the proceedings in File No.F1/947/76 and notices under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the alleged taking possession of the surplus land on 13.3.2008. No costs.