Judgment : Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad-1st respondent in C.C.No.G1/629/2007, issued under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short, ‘the Act’) including the panchanama, dated 11.02.2008 and also instructions under the Memo. No.1271/G1/10, dated 15.04.2010, addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur, Ranga Reddy District-2nd respondent. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this Writ Petition by M/s.BHEL (R&D) Employees’ Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner-Society’), are: The petitioner-M/s.BHEL (R&D) Employees’ Cooperative Housing Society Limited is a Society registered under the provisions of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, in the year 1976. The object of the Society is to secure house plots to all eligible members, who are employees of BHEL ( R&D). The petitioner Society entered into an agreement dated 30-01-1991 with Smt.Pranothi Srihari, represented by her father and General Power of Attorney Holder Sri R.Sudershan Reddy and eight others in respect of Ac.7.30 guntas in Survey No.30/1, Ac.8.27 gts in Survey No.31/1, Ac.6.32 gts in Sy.No.31/2 of Jeedimetla village and Ac.2.24 gts in Survey No.77 of Pet Basheerabad village for a total consideration of Rs.37 lakhs. The total extent covered under the agreement is Ac.25.33 guntas. The vendor-Smt. Pranothi Srihari got the same under a Will dated 24.7.1976 from her late grandfather Pingali Indrasena Reddy, who purchased the lands under a sale deed dated 29.3.1966 from Deoni Mallaiah. The said Deoni Mallaiah purchased the lands under a sale deed dated 8.10.1963 from the original pattedar M.Shyamsunder. The petitioner Society after securing permission for draft lay out from Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) developed the lands. The HUDA sanctioned final lay out under letter bearing No.7520/MP2/Plg/HUDA/94 dated 22.9.1997. In pursuance of the agreement of sale, Smt. Pranothi Srihari executed four sale deeds bearing document Nos.8802, 8803, 9070 and 9071 of 1993 in respect of Ac.1.10 guntas each in Sy.No.30/1 in favour of the petitioner Society. Since the vendors failed to execute the sale deeds in respect of other extents of lands, the petitioner Society filed O.S.No.91 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for specific performance and obtained a decree on 18-02-2002. Since the vendors failed to execute the sale deeds in respect of other extents of lands, the petitioner Society filed O.S.No.91 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for specific performance and obtained a decree on 18-02-2002. The vendors filed A.S.No.1104 of 2002 assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.91 of 1998 and the said appeal ended in dismissal on 15.12.2005. The petitioner Society filed E.P.No.5 of 2008 and obtained a sale deed dated 22-8-2008 through the process of Court in respect Ac.20.33 guntas. The remaining extent of Ac.2.30 guntas in Sy.No.30/1 of Jeedimetla village came to be acquired by the petitioner Society under a sale deed dated 22.8.2008. The petitioner Society allotted plots to it’s members as per the final lay out covering Ac.23.00 guntas including Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.30/1 of Jeedimetla village. The petitioner Society with the object of providing residential complex with ownership apartments to its members, who were not allotted any plot earlier, entered into construction agreement with M/s.Qubix Ventures Limited . The petitioner Society obtained necessary permission for construction of plots from GHMC, Hyderabad, vide Permit No.161/80 of 2010 in File No.635/CSC/TP-15/2009, dated 11.1.2010. The petitioner Society allotted plots to its members who have obtained loans from banks and financial institutions. When the petitioner Society approached the Sub Registrar, Quthbullapur, to register sale deeds executed in favour of its members in the second week of October, 2010, the 2nd respondent refused to receive the documents for registration on the ground that the first respondent has sent Memo bearing No.1271/G1/10, dated 15.4.2010 instructing the 2nd respondent to follow the guidelines in its letter bearing No.A4/928/2010, dated 17.3.2010. The petitioner Society applied for information and documents from the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad-1st respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and it came to know that the 1st respondent issued proceedings as if the land in Sy.No.30/1 has been declared as surplus land in the holding of M.Shyamsunder. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings against M.Shyamsunder under the provisions of Act, while considering the application of Dr.P.Hanumatha Rao, the Founder and Chairman of M/s. Sweekar Rehabilitation Institute for Handicapped for grant of “No Objection Certificate” in respect of his plot Nos.18 and 19 comprising Survey Nos.206, 207 to 212 of Mahanagar Estate, Jeedimetla village. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings against M.Shyamsunder under the provisions of Act, while considering the application of Dr.P.Hanumatha Rao, the Founder and Chairman of M/s. Sweekar Rehabilitation Institute for Handicapped for grant of “No Objection Certificate” in respect of his plot Nos.18 and 19 comprising Survey Nos.206, 207 to 212 of Mahanagar Estate, Jeedimetla village. The information secured by the petitioner Society by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act from the office of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land (Ceiling)-1st respondent revealed that one Smt. M.Shanta Bai filed declaration in Proceedings No.G2/7849, 7850 and 202 of 1976 in respect of survey Nos.206, 207 and 212 and that she has been found surplus holder to an extent of 27,313.67 square metres, as per the order dated 13.10.1987. The 1st respondent converted NOC application filed by Dr.P.Hanmath Rao into a regular proceedings under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the lands held by M.Shyamsunder. At no point of time, notice was served on M.Shyamsunder. The petitioner Society challenged the proceeding of the 1st respondent in C.C.No.G1/629/2007 under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of Act including Panchanama, dated 11.02.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The principle ground of challenge to the proceedings impugned in the writ petition is that M.Shyam Sunder sold land bearing Sy.No.30/1 long prior to commencement of the Act and that an extent of Ac.6-00 in Sy.No.30/1 along with other land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of agricultural seed farm even before 1963 and the said Seed Farm has been established in the acquired lands. Even the pahanies of the year 1964-65 evidenced the possession of the Government Seed Farm in respect of Ac.6-00 guntas. The remaining land was in occupation of Deoni Mallaiah as purchaser. In the Pahani patrika of the year 1966-67 in respect of S.No.30/1, Sri Pingali Indrasena Reddy was recorded as possessor of Ac.7.27 guntas and the remaining land was shown to be in possession of the Government Seed Farm. The same entries continued in 1975-76. The remaining land was in occupation of Deoni Mallaiah as purchaser. In the Pahani patrika of the year 1966-67 in respect of S.No.30/1, Sri Pingali Indrasena Reddy was recorded as possessor of Ac.7.27 guntas and the remaining land was shown to be in possession of the Government Seed Farm. The same entries continued in 1975-76. The pahanies and the registered documents clearly disclosed that it was Smt.Pranothi Srihari, who was the owner and possessor to an extent of Ac.7.27 guntas in Sy.No.30/1 as on the date of commencement of the Act and that therefore, M.Shyam Sunder was no longer owner much less the possessor of land in Sy.No.30/1 by the date of commencement of the Act. Under Section 8(4) of the Act, issuance of notice to the owner, occupants and all other persons interested in the land is mandatory. Had there been spot verification or inspection, the authority should not have missed to note the existing Government Seed Farm in a part of the Survey No.30/1 and houses and layouts in the remaining part of Survey No.30/1. At no point of time, notice was served on the pattedar M.Shyam Sunder and no efforts were taken by the competent authority to know his whereabouts or members of his family. Unlike other provisions of the Act, Section 10(6) of the Act mandates issuance of notice to the person in actual possession. M.Shyam Sunder was not in possession of the land on the date of commencement of the Act and the lands were not open, as shown in the panchanama. There exist Government Seed Farm and structures, septic tank, electricity lines, roads, water lines etc. The second respondent is a Quasi judicial authority discharging the statutory functions under the Registration Act and he cannot refuse to receive the document, except in case of land notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act by the Government. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 14.03.2011. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. Sri M.Ravinder Reddy, Special Officer and Competent Authority, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 14.03.2011. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. Sri M.Ravinder Reddy, Special Officer and Competent Authority, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that while considering the application filed by Dr.P.Hanumantharao, Founder and Chairman, Sweekar Rehabilitation Institute for Handicapped, Secunderabad, for grant of No Objection Certificate in respect of Plot Nos.18 and 19 comprising Survey Nos.206, 207 and 212 of Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, it came to light that Sri M.Shyamsundar was the pattedar of the lands to an extent of Ac.58.09 guntas comprising Survey Nos.5, 30/1, 30/2, 81, 7, 8, 206, 207, 212, 228, and 247 and that M.Shyamsundear failed to file declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. Therefore, the case was taken up suo motu and lands were computed to the holding of M.Shyamsundar and he was given the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.733, Revenue (UC), Department, dated 31.10.1988 and found to be holding surplus land to the extent of 2,10,297.35 sq. mtrs. and accordingly, orders came to be passed under Section 4(1) of the Act and final statement under Section 9 of the Act came to be issued vide proceeding No.G1/629/07, dated 16.06.2007. Further notification under Section 10(1) and declaration under Section 10(3) were issued and got published in Gazette Nos.93, dated 02.07.2007 and 231, dated 28.07.2007 respectively. Orders under Section 10(5) of the Act were issued on 01.09.2007 directing the declarant to surrender the land within stipulated time. Order under Section 10(6) of the Act came to be issued on 05.02.2008 directing the Enquiry Officer to take over the possession of the land. Accordingly, possession was taken over on 11.02.2008 and handed over the same to the concerned MRO under the cover of panchanama on 21.05.2010. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the counter-affidavit and it reads as hereunder: “I submit that all the proceedings, notification issued by the Respondent No.1 is as per the procedure and well within the provisions of the ULC Act. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is not correct. The Suo-moto proc., in CC No.G1/629/07 can not be clubbed with CC No.G1/7849, 7850/76 and G1/202/82 as the land in two CCs belong to different declarants. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is not correct. The Suo-moto proc., in CC No.G1/629/07 can not be clubbed with CC No.G1/7849, 7850/76 and G1/202/82 as the land in two CCs belong to different declarants. The land was purchased by the writ petitioner in Sy.No.30/1 of Jeedimetla Village after commencement of the Act, without obtaining any permission U/S.26 of the Act from ULC Authorities and vendors of the writ petitioners who purchased the said land before commencement of Act also have not filed any declaration before the ULC Authorities. Hence, the Sy.No.30/1 including other properties were computed to holding of pattedar Sri Shyam Sunder. Further it is submitted that on verification of the C.C. files it is observed that no inquiry report about ground status of land is available and also not verified the revenue records i.e., pahani pathrika. The orders and notices issued in this case were not served on the declarant at any point of time. It is submitted that when the land is vested with the Govt. U/S.10(3) of the Act and possession of the land was also taken over the same should be treated as Govt. Land and it should not be registered in favour of 3rd person without clearance from the Govt. Further, it is submitted that the writ petitioners are 3rd party purchaser. They have purchased the land after commencement of the Act. The transactions made after commencement of the Act, are null and void U/S.10(4) & 5(3) of ULC Act.” 5. Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Society and learned Asst. Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents. 6. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Society contends that the 1st respondent failed to take note of the fact that on the date of the suo motu enquiry, M.Shyamsunder, who is stated to be the original pattadar, was not in occupation of the lands and he executed sale deed much prior to the commencement of the Act and therefore, initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Act treating him as pattedar and possessor of the lands is illegal. It is also contended by him that the 1st respondent in the counter-affidavit specifically stated that the original pattedar was not issued notice before determining the excess land held by him and therefore, the order, dated 10.06.2006 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and it cannot be given effect and so also the consequential proceedings based on an invalid order cannot be given effect. It is also contended by him that the persons in occupation of the lands are required to be put on notice before the land holder being declared as a surplus land holder and also before taking possession of the surplus land. The 1st respondent failed to issue notice to the petitioner Society either before declaring M.Shyamsunder as surplus holder or before taking possession of the surplus land. He would further contend that out of Ac.13.16 guntas in Survey No.30/1, an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas was acquired by the Government in 1963 for the purpose of agricultural seed farm and that inclusion of the said land in the holding of the said Shyamsudar itself speaks of non-application of mind of the 1st respondent to the facts of the case and also non-verification of the revenue records. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel that in view of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the repeal Act’) which has been adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 27.03.2008 vide G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 22.04.2008, all the proceedings consequent to the order, dated 10.05.2006, shall stand abated. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.19652 of 2007, dated 29.04.2011 (M/s.Fertilizer Corporation of India Employees Cooperative Housing Society v. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Revenue (ULC-II) Department, Hyderabad); Singireddy Narasimha Reddy v. Govt. of A.P. 2009 (4) ALT 579 ; Kothuru Babu Surendra Kumar (died) v. Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Vijayawada 2000 (4) ALD 596 ; Chinnam Pandurangam v. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal & Ors. AIR 2008 A.P. 15 ; A.Appa Rao & Ors. V. Competent Authority, Defence Estates Officer & Competent Authority (ULC), Secunderabad & Anr. 2009 (5) ALD 800 ; Writ Appeal No.1542 of 2008, dated 21.11.2008 (V.Srinivas & Ors. v. The Government of A.P., rep. AIR 2008 A.P. 15 ; A.Appa Rao & Ors. V. Competent Authority, Defence Estates Officer & Competent Authority (ULC), Secunderabad & Anr. 2009 (5) ALD 800 ; Writ Appeal No.1542 of 2008, dated 21.11.2008 (V.Srinivas & Ors. v. The Government of A.P., rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Ors.), and the decision of the Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 792 and Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 718 . 7. Learned Asst. Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents submits that the land has been vested with the government consequent on notification issued under sub-section (5) of Section 10 and possession has been taken over under Section 10(6) of the Act and therefore, repeal Act does not effect the proceedings which have already been reached finality. It is also contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner Society having failed to place their objections during the enquiry before the Special Officer and Competent Authority-1st respondent cannot be permitted to challenge the proceedings relatable to the holding of M.Shyamsunder, which have reached the finality. During the course of hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record the entire file relating to the suo motu enquiry taken up by the 1st respondent in respect of the lands held by M. Shyamsunder. 8. The file does not reflect of M.Shyamsudner being put on notice during the suo motu enquiry. The person put on notice is Dr.P.Hanumantha Rao, who sought for NOC relating to Plot Nos.18 and 19 comprising Survey Nos.206, 207 and 212 of Jeedimetla Village. Dr.P.Hanumantha Rao was not concerned with the land admeasuring Ac.7.30 guntas which is in occupation of the petitioner Society. Indeed, the 1st respondent made a categorical statement in the counter-affidavit, relevant portion of which has been extracted supra, that M. Shyamsunder has not been put on notice and pahani patrikas were not verified. Indisputably an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas have been acquired by the Government in the year 1963 for the purpose of seed farm in Survey No.30/1. So what is left over is only Ac.7.16 cents, but the Special Officer and Competent Authority included the total extent of Ac.13.16 cents in the holding of M.Shyamsunder. Indisputably an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas have been acquired by the Government in the year 1963 for the purpose of seed farm in Survey No.30/1. So what is left over is only Ac.7.16 cents, but the Special Officer and Competent Authority included the total extent of Ac.13.16 cents in the holding of M.Shyamsunder. It indicates that the Special Officer has not verified the records such as pahanis and proceeded to include the entire extent in the holding of M.Shyamsunder. There is an obligation on the part of the Special Officer to serve the draft statement on the declarant to enable him to raise objections with regard to the lands included in the draft statement. For better appreciation, I may refer Section 8 of the Act, which reads as hereunder: “Sec.8. Preparation of draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit. – (1) On the basis of the statement filed under section 6 and after such inquiry as the competent authority may deem fit to make the competent authority shall prepare a draft statement in respect of the person who has filed the statement under section 6. (2) Every statement prepared under sub-section (1) shall contain the following particulars, namely:- (i) the name and address of the person; (ii) the Particulars of all vacant lands and of any other land on which there is a building, whether or not with a dwelling unit therein, held by such person; (iii) the particulars of the vacant lands which such person desires to retain within the ceiling limit; (iv) the particulars of the right, title or interest of the person in the vacant lands; and (v) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (3) The draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within thirty days of the service thereof. (3) The draft statement shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed on the person concerned together with a notice stating that any objection to the draft statement shall be preferred within thirty days of the service thereof. (4) The competent authority shall duly consider any objection received, within the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (3) or within such further period as may be specified by the competent authority for any good and sufficient reason, from the person on whom a copy of the draft statement has been served under that sub-section and the competent authority shall, after giving the objector a, reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it deems fit.” 9. Rule 5(2)(a)(ii) of the ULC Rules provide that the draft statement prepared under Section 8(1) of the Act shall be served together with the notice under sub-section (3) of Section 8, on all other persons so far as may be known, or are likely to have, any claim, or interest in the ownership, or possession, or both, of the vacant lands, by sending the same by registered post addressed to the person concerned – (i) in the case of the holder of the vacant lands, to his address as given in the statement filed in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 6, and (ii) in the case of other person at their last known addresses. 10. The petitioner Society purchased the lands under an agreement of sale and when the executants of the agreement failed to execute the registered sale deed, a suit being O.S.No.91 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, came to be filed and the suit ended in decree. Thereupon, the executants of the agreement challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.91 of 1998 by filing A.S.No.1104 of 2002 and the appeal ended in dismissal on 15.12.2005. Thereupon, the petitioner Society filed E.P. and got delivery of the property through the process of the Court. Subsequently permission has been obtained from the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for construction of 5 upper floors. 11. The material brought on record clearly established that the petitioner Society was in occupation of Ac.7.30 guntas as on the date of suo motu enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent. Subsequently permission has been obtained from the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for construction of 5 upper floors. 11. The material brought on record clearly established that the petitioner Society was in occupation of Ac.7.30 guntas as on the date of suo motu enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent without issuing any such notice as required under Section 8(1) and 8(3) of the Act has issued a final statement under Section 9 of the Act. Similar issue came up for consideration before a single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.19652 of 2007, wherein it has been held that the petitioner Society and their members, who were in possession of the land and persons interested therein, were entitled to issuance of notices under the provisions of the Act, and taking over possession of the land, without notices to them, violates the principles of natural justice, and as such, the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, affecting the rights of the petitioner Society and their members in the land in question, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 12. Similar view has been taken by another Single Judge of this Court in Singireddy Narasimha Reddy’s case (1 supra). In Kothuru Babu Surendra Kumar (died)’s case (2 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has also dealt the similar issue and observed as hereunder: “What is culled out from the above discussion is that the competent authority who has finalised the statement under Section 8(4) of the Act and final statement under Section 9 and notification issued under Section 10(1), 10(3) and Section 10(5) of the Act failed to follow the mandatory provisions by issuing notice to the persons likely to be affected viz., the petitioners, who are purchasers of the above lands and it is also within their knowledge; and the records also reveal that Smt Tulsamma, the 4th and 5th respondent in the writ petitions admitted that she has no interest in the above lands as she has sold the same to the society and the same was also discussed by the competent authority in his earliest proceedings dated 28-5-1984. In view of the same non-issuance of notice and its service upon the interested persons is fatal and the entire proceedings and the final statement under Section 8(4) of the Act; and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 12-4-1990 and the consequential orders of the first respondent under Section 8(4) and Section 9 of the Act dated 9-2-1991 and the notification issued under Section 10(1); 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act are all of no consequences and consequently they are declared as non est. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 13. The proposition of law laid down in the above cases squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. The petitioner Society is concerned with Ac.7.30 guntas in Survey No.30/1 of Jeedimetla Village. Neither the original land owner nor the subsequent purchasers including the petitioner Society have been put on notice by the 1st respondent while exercising suo motu powers of revision in deciding the surplus land held by the declarant. Therefore, the order, dated 11.02.2008, passed in CC No.G1/629/2007 and consequential orders relatable to the land in Survey No 30/1, admeasuring Ac.7.30 cents, Jeedimetla village, are all of no consequences and consequently they are declared as non est. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.