Judgment : 1. Legality of the orders passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority (S.O. & C.A), Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad in Proceedings No.H1/4933/76 and H1/177/77 under Section 6(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 dated 4.8.2005, determining that Gurukul Ghatakesar Trust (for short GGT) which held an extent of Ac.649.20 gts of land in Khanamet and Izzatnagar villages of Serilingampally Mandal in Rangareddy District in the capacity of a Charitable Trust, is holding land in excess of ceiling limit to the extent of 23,16,839.02 sq.meters as confirmed by the Commissioner, Appeals, Office of Chief Commissioner and Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in No.HYD/102/2006 dated 24.1.2007, is the prime issue involved in these three writ petitions filed by - (i) 32 persons claiming to be the “protected tenants” of some of the lands of Gurukul Ghatakesar Trust, (ii) by way of a Public Interest Litigation by one Sri Chandra Sena Reddy and two others challenging the inaction of the respondent-authorities in not taking action for protection of the Trust properties and (iii) Sri Gurkul Ghatkesar Trust, Ghatkesar village, represented by its Fit Person, Ghatkesar, Rangareddy District respectively. 2. While W.P.Nos.9714 and 16658 of 2009 are filed challenging the orders of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad dated 4.8.2005 as confirmed by the orders passed by the Commissioner, Appeals dated 24.1.2007, W.P.No.20407 of 2008 is filed by the protected tenants challenging the action of the respondent-authorities in including their land in Khanamet village, Rangareddy District, allegedly taken possession by the Government under the provisions of the ULC Act and in occupation of third parties, for regularization in favour of third parties in occupation as per G.O.Ms.No.747 Revenue (U.C.I) Department dated 18.6.2008. By the said G.O. Government issued guidelines formulating a general scheme for allotment of excess lands which were vested in the Government and possession of which has been taken over by the Government under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976 to the land owners/declarants/third parties in occupation subject to certain conditions. It may be noted here that the land of the Trust which the protected tenants are claiming was said to have been taken possession of by the State under the ULC proceedings on 19.4.2006. It may be noted here that the land of the Trust which the protected tenants are claiming was said to have been taken possession of by the State under the ULC proceedings on 19.4.2006. Pursuant to the orders in G.O.Ms.No.747, number of persons who are in occupation of plots/land of the Trust filed applications for regularization of their occupation including the party respondents herein who are in occupation of the Trust land. Petitioner in W.P.No.9714 of 2009 also filed W.P.M.P.No.12637 of 2009 for a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 not to regularize any building under G.O.Ms.No.901 M.A dated 31.12.2007 and not to regularize any layout under G.O.Ms.No.902 MA dated 31.12.2008 and to direct the respondents 5 and 8 not to allow any further encroachments/constructions in the GGT lands. 3. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petitions, members of Sri Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. which acquired land from the Trust and some individuals who have purchased plots from the said society, persons who purchased the land directly from the President of the Trust Sri Kishanlal or through his General Power of Attorney and some welfare housing associations who have purchased land/plots from the Trust or Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Society and other Housing Corporations/Societies got themselves impleaded as respondents in the writ petitions. In W.P.No.20407 of 2008 Respondents 3 to 335 were impleaded by various orders passed by this Court in umpteen miscellaneous petitions. Similarly, in W.P.No.9714 of 2009 respondents 9 to 344 were impleaded and in W.P.No.16658 of 2009 respondents 4 to 211 were impleaded. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Andhra Pradesh, Sultan Bazaar represented by its President and Arya Samaj, Banswada, Nizamabad District represented by its president are also impleaded as party respondents in the writ petitions. In W.P.No.9714 of 2009 filed as PIL, this Court, by interim order dated 24.6.2009, directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land in question. This Court by order dated 4.11.2011 after hearing the learned counsel for party respondents and taking into consideration the statement made by the learned Advocate General in the Court, modified the interim order to the following effect: “7. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. This Court by order dated 4.11.2011 after hearing the learned counsel for party respondents and taking into consideration the statement made by the learned Advocate General in the Court, modified the interim order to the following effect: “7. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. While the petitioners are entitled to espouse the cause of Trust in larger public interest, but at the same time, we will have to strike a balance between both the sides so as to maintain the equilibrium in the matter. If the applications for regularization are taken up for consideration by the State Government or the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, the petitioners may not suffer a serious prejudice. On the other hand, if those applications could not be taken up before 31.12.2011 due to pendency of this writ petition, and if the scheme were to lapse by then, the parties will suffer an irreparable damage. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to modify the order of status quo granted by this Court on 24.6.2009 so as to allow and enable the applicants to seek consideration of the applications for regularization. However, any such orders of regularization that might be passed in respect of the land in question will abide by the result in this writ petition, no permanent rights can flow from there in favour of those persons to whom the regularization orders are passed. This should be made clear by the State Government as well as the Metropolitan Development Authority. Similarly, no alienation of the land shall be allowed and no third party interest thereof should be created.” 8. We hope and Trust that the State Government will take appropriate decision in the matter for setting apart substantial amount for advancing the cause of the Trust in the meantime. In W.P.No.20407 of 2008 filed by the protected tenants, this Court, by order dated 18.9.2008, directed the respondent-authorities not to pass any orders on any application filed with regard to regularization of the subject lands, pending further orders. The party respondents in all the writ petitions filed vacate stay petitions and some of the parties filed petitions for a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the applications filed by them for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.29008. 4. The controversy in these writ petitions arise in the following factual matrix: Gurukul Ghatakesar Trust The Trust has a chequered history. 4. The controversy in these writ petitions arise in the following factual matrix: Gurukul Ghatakesar Trust The Trust has a chequered history. One Shri Bansilal Radhelal Vyas and his associates gathered movable and immovable properties and donations from philanthropic minded people in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad for establishing a Gurukul. Initially Gurukul was established at Anantagiri Rambagh, Hyderabad in 1938 and thereafter moved to Ghatkesar in Taluk East of Hyderabad District in 1941 (presently Rangareddy District). It has also purchased certain properties with the funds received. The Trust was imparting education establishing regular educational institutions and it was popularly known as “Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust”. One Shri Badrinath, a businessman of Hyderabad and father-in-law of Shri Bansilal endowed large extent of property in dispute by a registered gift deed dated 4.5.1951 bearing Document No.769/1951, admeasuring Ac.627.00 of land for the welfare of the society in Sy.Nos.7/1, 20 to 29, 45 to 49, 53, 54, 87 to 96, 107 to 109 and 111 (Old survey numbers) corresponding to new Sy.Nos.3, 5/2 to 5/12, 5/14 to 5/23 of Izzatngar and 11, 12 13 to 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 58, 59, 61, 64 and 65 of Khanamet village, Hyderabad West and obtained permission on 26.04.1951 for alienation of the land from the Deputy Collector in reference Rc.01-SA-1889/1887/40 to utilize the land and the income thereon to fulfil the aims and objects of GGT. Shri Bansilal who was maintaining the Trust died in a train accident on 1/2.9.1956. Subsequently, the Board of Trustees of GGT executed a registered deed dated 18.10.1956 regarding the objects, duties and functions to be carried out by the GGT. According to the deed, apart from 627 acres of land donated by Shri Badrinath, GGT also owns land to the extent of Ac.22.20 guntas, totaling to Ac.649.20 guntas. The main objects of GGT are to impart education by establishing Schools, Colleges, Hostels, Libraries, provide all kinds of activities in the institutions, to run philanthropic institutions, to aid and assist poor, grief stricken, destitutes etc. Consequent on the enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) GGT filed a declaration in Form I under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act on 9.9.1976. Case of protected tenants: 5. Consequent on the enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) GGT filed a declaration in Form I under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act on 9.9.1976. Case of protected tenants: 5. The State brought an amendment to A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’) inserting Section 38E by Act 15 of 1971 which ensured that all the protected tenants to become owners of the lands held by them as protected tenants w.e.f 1.1.1973 by operation of statute wherever the total lands held by the land holder exceeded two family holdings. In the instant case, GGT was holding more than two family holdings as on the date appointed by the Government for enforcement of Section 38E i.e. 1.1.1973. According to the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.20407 of 2008, all the protected tenants whose names appear in the tenancy register prepared under section 37A were entitled to become owners of the respective lands held by them as protected tenants. As per the Rules framed by the Government for implementation of Section 38E it is obligatory on the part of the concerned Tribunal to prepare a provisional list of the protected tenants who are eligible for issuance of 38E ownership certificates and after hearing objections, if any, of the landlord, have to prepare a final list and issue ownership rights certificates to the protected tenants. However, the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.20407 of 2008, who claim to be the protected tenants in respect of lands situated in Survey Nos.11, 34, 43 to 49, 58, 59, 61, 64 and 65 of Khanamapet village, is that the Tribunal by mistake published NIL provisional list and NIL final list disregarding the fact that the GGT was holding more than two family holdings as on the appointed day. Some of the protected tenants carried the matter in appeal before the then Joint Collector aggrieved by the NIL publication of the provisional and final lists. By order dated 20.3.1979 Appellate Authority allowed the appeal holding that the subject lands are held by the petitioners in W.P.No.20407 of 2008 as protected tenants and they are entitled for issuance of ownership rights under section 38E of the Tenancy Act and the matter was remanded to the RDO, Hyderabad. By order dated 20.3.1979 Appellate Authority allowed the appeal holding that the subject lands are held by the petitioners in W.P.No.20407 of 2008 as protected tenants and they are entitled for issuance of ownership rights under section 38E of the Tenancy Act and the matter was remanded to the RDO, Hyderabad. By order dated 8.11.1979 RDO, Hyderabad dismissed the proceedings for default though no notices were issued to the petitioners. However, on 8.11.1979 GGT and the petitioners (protected tenants) entered into agreements in terms of Section 38A of the Act for mutually agreed consideration. According to the protected tenants, as per the agreement of sale dated 3.12.1981, the land holders received the entire consideration at Rs.4,000/- per acre and the agreement has been filed before the RDO. Exemption from the provisions of ULC Act: 6. The GGT passed unanimous resolution on 11.3.1981 to sell the lands of the Trust on the ground that the Trust is facing difficulties to retain the possession of the land due to illegal encroachments. In the meanwhile, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad passed orders dated 10.12.1981 declaring the GGT as exempted under section 19(iv) of the ULC Act. GGT also obtained certificate dated 20.4.1982 from the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad certifying that the Trust is entitled for the benefit of exemption provided in Section 19(1) of the ULC Act in respect of vacant lands held by it subject to the provisions of 19(2) as the Trust satisfied the conditions laid down in Clause (vi) of sub-section 1 of Section 19(2) and closed the file. Alienation of land by GGT to Sri Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Society and others: 7. It appears that Sri B. Kishanlal, the then President of the GGT executed a registered sale deed dated 24.5.1982 in favour of M/s Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., in respect of an extent of Ac.71.03 gts in Sy.Nos.11/14 to 11/18. Under three registered sale deeds dated 22.5.1982, 2.7.1982 and 2.8.1982, Swamy Ayyappa Housing Society purchased a total extent of Ac.140.20 gts in Sy.Nos.11/8 to 11/18 of Khanamet village, near Madhapur. Land was also alienated to Vishveswaraiah Engineers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Under various registered sale deeds dated 21.4.1982 A.P. State Housing Corporation purchased an extent of about Ac.167.00 of the Trust land. Land was also alienated to Vishveswaraiah Engineers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Under various registered sale deeds dated 21.4.1982 A.P. State Housing Corporation purchased an extent of about Ac.167.00 of the Trust land. However, a public notice was issued on behalf of some of the Trustees stating that Sri Kishanlal and other Trustees are trying to sell away the Trust lands in violation of the Acts and Rules and the Trust is not responsible for such sale transactions. When the documents were presented before the registering authority they were kept pending and opinion of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad was sought. By order dated 7.6.1982 the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad permitted the registering authority to release the documents as the Trust was exempted under Section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act. Sri Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Society got the layout approved by the Gram Panchayat and from time to time sold the plots to as many as 1215 members under various registered sale deeds and most of them have constructed buildings in their respective plots. Kishanlal either by himself or through his General Power of Attorney also sold away other lands of the Trust to various other housing societies/welfare associations and also to individuals during the years 1982 and 1987. The Ayyappa Society with their funds formed roads, underground drainage system and laid street light system and a substation was also established by the State Electricity Board. An extent of Ac.1.4 guntas was also allotted to HMWSS Board for construction of drinking water reservoir. It appears that pursuant to the declaration filed by GGT under the ULC Act, 1976 proceedings were initiated on 10.12.1982 and draft statement under Section 8(1) and notice under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act were settled upon the President of GGT. Registration of the GGT under A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987: 8. The GGT was registered in Rc.No.J3/3529/1989 dated 14.3.1989 under the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act and an Executive Officer in Rc.No.G1/13577/1989 dated 15.3.1989 was appointed by the Commissioner of Endowments. Registration of the GGT under A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987: 8. The GGT was registered in Rc.No.J3/3529/1989 dated 14.3.1989 under the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act and an Executive Officer in Rc.No.G1/13577/1989 dated 15.3.1989 was appointed by the Commissioner of Endowments. W.P.No.3931 of 1989 filed by the President of Trust Sri Kishanlal challenging the appointment of Executive Officer was disposed by this Court on 10.4.1989 holding that the Commissioner of Endowments was justified in appointing an Executive Officer to take over the records and the properties of the Trust in view of the acts of the Managing Trustee in selling away a large extent of about 627 acres of land belonging to the Trust without the permission of the Commissioner. Request of the protected tenants for issuance of ownership certificates: 9. In the meanwhile, as the protected tenants were not issued ownership certificates under section 38A of the Tenancy Act, as per the compromise entered into with the GGT, they approached the RDO for issuance of ownership certificates under section 38E. The RDO after due enquiry issued ownership certificates in proceedings No.G/1309/1996 to G/1315/1996 dated 18.5.1996. Aggrieved by the said order, one Vishwesharaih Welfare Association (alleged purchasers) preferred CRP.No.1060 of 1996/98 before the High Court. By order dated 17.11.1998 the High Court remanded the matter to the RDO for de novo enquiry giving opportunity to all the parties and for passing fresh orders. The RDO after hearing all the parties, allowed the claim of the protected tenants and ordered for issuance of sale certificates in proceedings No.G2/266/98 dated 19.4.2001. It is the case of the protected tenants that the GPA of the Trust by making a representation to the tenants that it will get patta certificates in their names under the agreement under section 38A obtained signatures and thumb impressions on blank papers and appear to have submitted the same on behalf of the Trust as surrender of the tenancy by the protected tenants under section 19 of the Act which have not seen the light of the day till 1998. Orders passed by the Government under Endowments Act declaring the sale transactions as invalid: 10. Orders passed by the Government under Endowments Act declaring the sale transactions as invalid: 10. When the members of Ayyappa Society applied for regularization of the constructions under G.O.Ms.No.419 MA dated 30.7.1998 and 503 dated 4.9.1998 and for issue of building permissions, the Municipal Commissioner, Serilingamaplly directed them to obtain NOC from the Revenue Department. Challenging the same W.P.No.14387 of 1999 and batch cases were filed which were allowed on 28.9.2001 aggrieved by which W.A.Nos.1769 and 1794 of 2001 were filed. While the matter stood thus, the Government considered the matter under section 80(1)(c) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act.No.30 of 1987) (for short ‘the Endowment Act’) and declared the sale transactions made by GGT made upto the year 1987 as null and void, vide G.O.Ms.No.703, Revenue (Endowment. I) Department dated 30.09.2000. Aggrieved by the orders of the Government W.P.No.1671 of 2001 and batch of writ petitions were filed. Amendment to Tenancy Act exempting the endowed property from tenancy: 11. By AP Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act 2002 dated 27.12.2002 the Andhra Pradesh (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’) was amended inserting Clause (g) in Section 102, which exempted any agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any Charitable Hindu Religious Institution or endowment as defined by the provisions of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act from tenancy. On the basis of the amendment, the Joint Collector under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act allowed the appeal of the protected tenants holding that the protected tenants were not entitled to protection of their tenancy or to claim ownership certificates by order dated 7.10.2003. Aggrieved by the same CRPs and writ petitions were filed before this Court. Order passed by the High Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and W.P.No.1671 of 2001 and batch: 12. Aggrieved by the same CRPs and writ petitions were filed before this Court. Order passed by the High Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and W.P.No.1671 of 2001 and batch: 12. In the meanwhile, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Appeals -W.A.No.1769 and 1794 of 2001 and W.P.Nos.1671 of 2001 and batch by common judgment dated 15.10.2003 holding that the sale transactions are invalid and that the Commissioner of Endowments has jurisdiction and power under Section 89 of the Endowments Act to pass an order directing the Trustee or other person in charge of the Management of the Institution or Endowment to enter into a compromise if the party is willing to enter into a compromise and pending finalization of the matter before the Commissioner of Endowments and/or the Government, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on 15.10.2003 in all respects. Accordingly, Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Society and some other individuals filed applications before the Commissioner, Endowments Department for regularization of their occupation. Eviction of occupiers of GGT land by Endowments Department and constitution of Committee for implementation of the directions of the High Court. 13. While the applications were pending, by orders dated 1.6.2004 the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments passed orders for eviction of the occupiers in GGT lands. Subsequently, in implementation of the directions of the High Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch, Government by orders dated 8.10.2004 issued in G.O.Rt.No.1616 Revenue (Endowment-II) Department constituted a committee to facilitate the work of the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 89 of the Endowments Act and to advise the commissioner as to the valuation of the lands. It appears that the Commissioner had passed certain orders of compromise under section 89 of the Endowments Act. As directed by the High Court the members of the society submitted representations. In proceedings Rc.No.M4/59440/2003 dated 23.5.2005 Commissioner fixed the rate in respect of land purchased by an individual from the Trust at Rs.1980/- per sq. yd and directed to pay 1/4th of the sale proceeds as 1st instalment and the remaining 3/4th amount in a period of four months from the date of the said order and directed the Fit person to accept the same and execute the sale deeds. PIL filed against the orders of Government permitting compromises in respect of lands of various Temples & Endowments in the State: 14. PIL filed against the orders of Government permitting compromises in respect of lands of various Temples & Endowments in the State: 14. Challenging the policy decision of the State Government to allow sale of lands by negotiation or acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act or by way of compromises under section 89 of the Endowments Act in respect of lands held by various temples and endowments in the entire State, W.P. No. 11812 of 2005 by way of PIL was filed. In the said writ petition interim orders were passed on 7.6.2005 directing that no sale of endowment lands shall be entertained and no compromises under section 89 of the Endowment Act shall be effected until further orders, which were, however, modified on 2.11.2005 permitting sale by way of public auctions. Determination of excess land held by GGT under ULC Act: 15. While things stood thus, the Special officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad re-commenced the proceedings under the ULC Act after invalidation of the sale transactions and passed orders dated 4.8.2005 under sections 8(1) and 8(3) of the ULC Act, 1976 without any notice to the Trust determining that GGT is holding surplus land to the extent of 23,16,839.02 sq. meters in proceedings.No.H1/4933/76 and H1/177/77. Thereafter on 10.10.2005 proceedings under Section 8(4) of the Act, 1976 declaring GGT as surplus holder to an extent of 23,16,839.02 sq. mts were issued, aggrieved by which an appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Appeals. The High Court by orders dated 2.11.2005 modified the orders dated 7.6.2005 in W.P.No.11812 of 2005 to the effect that there shall be no restriction for effecting sales by way of public auction. Objections of GGT against the proceedings under ULC and acquisition of land by the Government in public interest. 16. It appears that objections were filed by GGT on 6.12.2005 against the proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 requesting to withdraw the proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act and Government having considered that matter involves large extent of prime land, decided that the land can be brought into the fold of government. to enable optimum utilization of the land in the best public interest. to enable optimum utilization of the land in the best public interest. Gazette Notification dated 8.12.2005 under section 10(1) of the ULC Act was issued notifying that land described in the schedule has to be acquired by the Government having determined the final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act. All the persons interested in the vacant land were called upon to appear in person or by their authorized agent on or before 15.12.2005. Gazette notification under section 10(3) was issued on 16.2.2006 notifying that surplus lands vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from 16.2.2006. A public notice was issued on 26.2.2006 in Andhra Jyothi Daily Newspaper informing the encroachers of the GGT lands that eviction orders were passed against them and requesting them to handover the vacant physical possession of the land to the Trust. Challenging the paper publication dated 26.2.2006 W.P.No.8712 of 2006 was filed. The Fit person of the Trust submitted a representation dated 4.3.2006 to the Special Officer to grant exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of ULC Act. Request of Government to Special Officer and Competent Authority to withdraw the ULC proceedings in the light of exemption under section 20(1)(a) of ULC Act: 17. Interestingly, however, Government in Memo. No.101240/Edt. & G(1)/1993 Rev. (End.II) Department dated 28.2.2006 had taken a decision to apply and utilize the exemption under section 20(1)(a) of the Act, 1976 in respect of GGT lands to operate the provisions of the Endowment Act and accordingly a U.O. Note in No.101240/Endt.lII (I)/1993, Rev. (End.II) Department was sent to the Revenue (U.C) Department requesting the Revenue (UC) Department to issue necessary directions to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad to withdraw the statement under section 8(1) and 8(3) of the ULC Act, 1976. Surrender of excess land: 18. Since no objections were received to the Gazette notification dated 8.12.2005, Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC issued notice dated 9.3.2006 under section 10(5) of the Act, 1976 directing Sri B. Biskhapati, the then Fit person of the Trust to surrender/deliver possession of the surplus land to Dy. Tahsildar within thirty days of service of the notice and on 17.4.2006 the enquiry officer was directed to take possession of the land. Pursuant to the notice, the Fit person said to have surrendered/delivered possession of land to an extent of 23,16,839.02 sq. Tahsildar within thirty days of service of the notice and on 17.4.2006 the enquiry officer was directed to take possession of the land. Pursuant to the notice, the Fit person said to have surrendered/delivered possession of land to an extent of 23,16,839.02 sq. mts and possession of the land claims to have been taken by the concerned Tahsildar on 19.4.2006 by conducting panchanama. Meeting conducted in the Chambers of Hon’ble Chief Minister and formulation of special regularization scheme: 19. When 163 plot owners were sought to be evicted they filed W.P.No.8712 of 2006 and this Court by order dated 26.4.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.11103 of 2006 directed to take expeditious steps for eviction duly following the procedure under section 83 of the Endowments Act and the writ petition was finally dismissed as withdrawn on 8.2.2007. Against the order dated 4.8.2005 of the S.O. & C.A, the Trust filed appeal before the Commissioner, Appeals. During the pendency of the appeal, a meeting was conducted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 21.9.2006 and certain decisions were taken, important being that the land to be treated as urban land ceiling land, all the applications filed under ULC Act for regularization to be rejected, special regularization scheme to be prepared which should cover the constructions by way of residential houses, sheds, shops, single rooms, basements, compound walls and also plots covered by registered sales etc., and vacant land, if any should be allotted to HUDA etc. The decisions taken in the meeting held on 21.9.2006 were communicated to the Commissioner, Endowments on 5.10.2006. Submission of report by the Commissioner, Endowments holding that the sale transactions are invalid: 20. On 19.10.2006 Commissioner, Endowments submitted a report to the Government about the Trust and the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch that GGT is a charitable institution and the properties given and endowed were for a charitable purpose and thereby its properties are charitable endowments and all the sale transactions are invalid, void ab initio and the same do not confer any valid title upon the purchasers as the transactions are under the provisions of Endowments Act, 1987. Order of Commissioner of Appeals confirming the order of Special Officer & Competent Authority determining excess land held by GGT. 21. Order of Commissioner of Appeals confirming the order of Special Officer & Competent Authority determining excess land held by GGT. 21. In the appeal filed before the Commissioner of Appeals against the orders passed by the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC dated 4.8.2005, orders were passed in Appeal No.HYD/102/2006, dated 24.1.2007 holding that the exemption obtained under section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act, 1976 is not conducive to alienate the lands and the person in charge of the Trust obtained exemption erroneously under section 19(1) (vi), therefore, exemption under Section 19(1)(iv) automatically ceases and the provisions of the Act, 1976 are attracted and the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC to take up the case and conduct proceedings as per the provisions of the ULC Act. Holding so, the appeal was dismissed. Dismissal of CRPs filed by protected tenants against the order of Joint Collector declining protection of tenancy and orders of status quo passed by the Supreme Court: 22. On 31.12.2007 the CRPs and Writ Petitions filed by the protected tenants against the orders of the Joint Collector dated 7.10.2003 declining protection of tenancy were disposed of by a common judgment dismissing the CRPs and the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.23076 of 2003 and batch. Aggrieved by the said orders, protected tenants filed SLP(C) Nos.8675-8678 of 2008 with SLP(C) No.9073 of 2008 on 15.4.2008 and SLPs. (C) 12649-12658 on 15.5.2008. The Supreme Court while issuing notice granted status quo as on 15.4.2008 and 15.5.2008. G.O.Ms.No.747 evolving a general scheme by the Government for regularization of the occupation of excess land held by the third parties: 23. The ULC Act was repealed by the Government of India on 22.3.1999 by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999) which shall come into force in the States of Haryana and Punjab and in all the Union Territories on the 11th day of January, 1999 and in any other State which adopts the Act under Clause (2) of Article 252 of the Constitution on the date of such adoption. The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted Adoption of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.3.2008, vide G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (U.C.I) dated 22nd April, 2008. The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted Adoption of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.3.2008, vide G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (U.C.I) dated 22nd April, 2008. Subsequently, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.747 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 18.6.2008 formulating a general scheme and issuing guidelines applicable to the entire State for allotment of excess land which vested in the Government and possession of which has been taken over by the Government under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976 to the land owners/declarants/third parties in occupation, subject to certain conditions. Pursuant thereto, number of applications were filed including by the party respondents herein for regularization of the plots/land in occupation. It is the case of the protected tenants that the Government disobeying the status quo orders of the Supreme Court included the lands of the GGT which they are holding as protected tenants and declared as excess land for regularization in favour of third parties in occupation. 24. In W.P.M.P.No.22750 of 2010 in W.P.No.9714 of 2009 filed by the President of Arya Samaj, Banswada, Nizamabad and in W.P.M.P.No.26914 of 2012 in W.P.No.16558 of 2009 filed by the President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Andhra Pradesh, Sultan Bazar, it is stated that late Bansilal Vyas inspired by teachings of late Maharshi Swami Dayanand Saraswathi established Arya Samajs in the State and also worked as Secretary of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha for some time. It is stated that the registered Trust deed dated 18.10.1956 executed by late Bansilal Vyas was under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. As per Section 11 of the said Act, the Trustee is bound to fulfil the aims and objects of the Trust except as modified by the consent of all the beneficiaries and where the beneficiary is incompetent to contract, his consent may, for the purpose of the section, be given by a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Further, where discretionary power conferred on a Trustee is not exercised reasonably and in good faith, such powers may be controlled by Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under section 49 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and the jurisdiction of the government is very limited. Further, where discretionary power conferred on a Trustee is not exercised reasonably and in good faith, such powers may be controlled by Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under section 49 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and the jurisdiction of the government is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Government will come into play only when the Trustees have violated their duties, liabilities and failed to fulfil the objects and aims of the Trust or causes injuries to the Trust property, but Government cannot take away any Trust property. The duty of the Government is only to protect the property of the Trust for the noble cause it was established. Since the objects of the Trust are for the welfare of the society and it is not against any public policy, it cannot take over the property. As per section 63 of the Indian Trusts Act, where Trust property comes into the hands of a third person, beneficiary may file a suit for a declaration that the property is comprised in the Trust. Their claim is that late Bansilal created the Trust with the support of the petitioner’s society by way of contributions, gifts, donations with an object to run the educational institutions etc. In the event the Trust fails to manage it, as per the deed of Trust, the entire Trust management has to be entrusted to Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Hyderabad and where it declines it should be given to the apex body of Arya Samaj ie Sarwadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Delhi and in case it declines it should be given to any other institution on such terms and conditions. By resolution dated 29.5.2010 the Board of Trustees of the GGT authorized the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Hyderabad to take over the management of the GGT, all institutions, movable and immovable properties of GGT including the property in dispute. The petitioner society is instrumental in establishing GGT. The petitioner society filed W.P.No.7221 of 2010 challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 24.1.2007, but the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. After declaration of sale transactions as null and void, the property stand divested to the Trust. 25. On behalf of the respondent-authorities, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.No.16658 of 2009. After declaration of sale transactions as null and void, the property stand divested to the Trust. 25. On behalf of the respondent-authorities, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.No.16658 of 2009. In view of the controversy involved in the writ petitions, the counter can be treated as counter in W.P.No.9714 of 2009 also. The material facts as well as filing of various writ petitions etc. is not disputed by the Respondent-authorities in their counter affidavit. 26. It is stated that both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on ground of laches as the writ petitions challenging the proceedings dated 4.8.2005 of Special Officer and Competent Authority and the order dated 24.4.2007 are filed with a delay of two years. The Government having noticed the unauthorized transactions made by the management of the Trust and having regard to the purpose for which GGT has been established issued G.O.Ms.No.703 dated 30.9.2000 declaring the sale transactions made upto the year 1987 by late B. Kishanlal himself and through his GPA as null and void. The President of the GGT filed declaration under section 6(1) of ULC Act and after determination the GGT was found to have land in excess of the ceiling limit to the extent of 23,16,839.02 sq. mtrs and after culmination of the proceedings, GGT has surrendered the excess land. The Government constituted a Committee for preparing a special regularization scheme for regularization of excess land declared and taken possession under the provisions of ULC Act envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.747. Pursuant to the same, 2700 applications were received with requisite fee towards regularization. It is further stated that the provisions of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 have no application to GGT as the GGT itself filed declaration under ULC Act. A Trust will be exempted from the purview of ULC Act only as long as the land possessed by the Trust continues to be required for purposes of the Trust. Once the GGT obtained exemption, under section 19 (1)(iv), it cannot subsequently obtain exemption under section 19(1)(vi). The exemption granted under Section 19(1)(iv) is not conducive for alienation, therefore, once alienations are made the Trust is attracted by the provisions of ULC Act. Once the GGT obtained exemption, under section 19 (1)(iv), it cannot subsequently obtain exemption under section 19(1)(vi). The exemption granted under Section 19(1)(iv) is not conducive for alienation, therefore, once alienations are made the Trust is attracted by the provisions of ULC Act. Since GGT has illegally alienated the lands, Government has taken decision declaring all the transactions as null and void and the same was upheld by the High Court and became final. The Government in the best interest of all formulated a special scheme for regularization applicable to the entire State and accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.2008 and in view of the interim orders passed by this Court the applications filed for regularization of plots/land in occupation of third parties could not be processed. The proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976 having been concluded as per the provisions of the Act determining excess land held by the GGT, no interference is warranted by this Court with the said proceedings and as such the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 27. In W.P.No.20407 of 2008 filed by the protected tenants the State and the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC filed separate counters denying the material averments. 28. The Special Officer and Competent Authority in its counter-affidavit stated that pursuant to the amendment to Section 102 of the Tenancy Act, the claim of the petitioners was rejected and the same was upheld by this Court in W.P.No.23076 of 2003 and batch on 31.12.2007 and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioners claim to be protected tenants in respect of a total extent of Ac.63.095 gts. in S.Nos.11, 24, 43 to 49, 58, 59, 61, 64 and 65 of Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR district. They also claim to be the protected tenants in respect of Ac.8.10 gunts in S.No.11. Survey No.11 was sub-divided into 11/1 to 11/38 and it is for the petitioners to identify the same so that the same may be excluded from regularization. As regards the claim of the petitioners for 3 acres of land in S.No.34, it is stated that GGT has shown only 32 guntas of land in S.No.34 which was found to be surplus. The land in S.No.49 is not the subject matter of the proceedings under the ULC. The land in dispute was in possession of third parties. As regards the claim of the petitioners for 3 acres of land in S.No.34, it is stated that GGT has shown only 32 guntas of land in S.No.34 which was found to be surplus. The land in S.No.49 is not the subject matter of the proceedings under the ULC. The land in dispute was in possession of third parties. In the counter, the respondents have undertaken not to regularize the lands claimed by the petitioners pending disposal of the SLPs before the Supreme Court and it is for the petitioners to identify Ac.8.10 gts of land claimed by them in S.No.11 of Khanamet village out of total extent of Ac.359.09 gts. of land in various sub-divisions of S.No.11. 29. The State in their counter-affidavit reiterated what the Special Officer & Competent Authority stated in its counter. 30. The implead respondents who are in occupation of land in their counter-affidavits while reiterating the factual aspects stated that pursuant to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.747 they have submitted applications to the respondent-authorities for regularization of the plots/lands which they have validly purchased for valuable consideration either from the societies or from the then President of the GGT or through his General Power of Attorney and paid the requisite fee as prescribed by the Government. But due to the pendency of the writ petitions, their applications are not being processed. Since the orders under the ULC Act dated 4.8.2005 are validly passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority and rightly upheld by the Commissioner, Appeals the land vested in Government and Government in best public interest issued G.O.Ms.No.747 for regularization of land in occupation of third parties subject to payment of prescribed fee. Therefore, neither the orders passed under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976 nor the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.747 can be found fault with. SUBMISSIONS: 31. Therefore, neither the orders passed under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976 nor the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.747 can be found fault with. SUBMISSIONS: 31. Sri Chandrasena Reddy Petitioner in W.P.No.9714 of 2009 appearing as party-in-person submitted that since the Government considered the matter under section 80(1) of the Endowment Act and declared the sale transactions made upto the year 1987 executed by the Trust as null land void and the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps was requested to take further action in the matter as per the orders in G.O.Ms.No.703 dated 30.9.2000, the properties of the Trust continue to vest in GGT, therefore, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 to determine that the Trust was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch clearly held that GGT is a ‘charitable institution’ and the properties given and endowed were for a charitable purpose, therefore, its properties are charitable and shall be utilized only for charitable purposes. The S.O. & C.A without taking into consideration cancellation of the sale transactions has erroneously passed orders under the ULC Act and the Commissioner of Appeals has also failed to take into consideration the objections filed by the Trust in proper perspective and did not apply its mind. The GGT is a public Trust created for the welfare of the society and as such the Government has duty to protect the properties of the Trust. The properties of the Trust are to be utilized only for the benefit and welfare of the society as per the objects of GGT and not for any other purpose. 32. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act are attracted to the Trust established as per the Trust deed dated 18.10.1956, Government has no control over the Trust property and it cannot be taken away by the Government. Where the Trustee has not exercised his discretionary powers reasonably and in good faith, such powers may be controlled by Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under section 49 of the Act. Where the Trustee has not exercised his discretionary powers reasonably and in good faith, such powers may be controlled by Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under section 49 of the Act. He further submitted that GGT is a public Trust created for the welfare of the society and the properties of the Trust are to be utilized for the welfare of the society only. The objects of the Trust being not against any public policy, the management of the Trust cannot be taken over by the government. It is submitted that since the irregularities committed by one of the Trustees have been declared as null and void by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.703 dated 30.9.2000 and the sale transactions were declared as null and void by this Court by order dated 15.10.2003, the orders of the Special Officer & Competent Authority under the ULC Act by the proceedings dated 4.8.2005 and the order of the Commissioner of Appeals dated 24.1.2007 are liable to be set aside. The Government may appoint new Trustees to fulfil the objects and aims of the Trust and land may be restored to the GGT for use of its income for the objects of the GGT. 33. Sri Subba Reddy learned Senior Counsel appearing for the GGT in W.P.No.16658 of 2009 submitted that since the sale transactions made by the then President of the Trust were held to be invalid by this Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch upholding the orders of Government in G.O.Ms.No.703 declaring the sale transactions as null and void and the judgment having become final, the properties of the GGT continue to vest in GGT. The Special Officer & Competent Authority under the ULC Act has not considered this aspect and erroneously passed orders without jurisdiction holding that the Trust is holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. The Appellate authority has also failed to apply its mind and erroneously concurred with the Special Officer & Competent Authority. The alienations having been nullified, the Trust continues to enjoy the exemption granted under Section 19(1)(iv) by the authority concerned under the provisions of the ULC Act. It is further submitted that after exemption was granted under section 19(1)(iv), it is not permissible for the competent authority to reopen the proceedings under the ULC Act and pass orders under section 8 of ULC Act without issuing prior notice to the declarant. It is further submitted that after exemption was granted under section 19(1)(iv), it is not permissible for the competent authority to reopen the proceedings under the ULC Act and pass orders under section 8 of ULC Act without issuing prior notice to the declarant. Sri Subba Reddy further submitted that the provisions of Indian Trusts Act are attracted to the Trust and taken us through various provisions of the Indian Trusts Act and submitted that Government cannot take over the land of GGT. He further submitted that the so called taking possession of the excess land by the Special Officer & Competent Authority on 19.4.2006 is not correct inasmuch as the entire land was in the possession of the alienees and as such taking possession of the land does not arise. 34. Learned counsel appearing for the protected tenants submitted that in respect of lands held by the protected tenants they entered into a mutual agreement with the Trust on 3.12.1981 and entire sale consideration as agreed to was paid to the Trust and in pursuance of the same ownership certificates were issued to the protected tenants and others on 18.5.1996 under Section 38A of the Tenancy Act. It is only to deprive the protected tenants of their right to the lands which they were holding for several years as protected tenants, amendment to Section 102 was brought by inserting Clause (g) which exempted the lands from the purview of tenancy. This action of the tate is arbitrary and illegal. Though the writ petitions filed by the protected tenants were dismissed by the High Court the matter was carried to the Supreme Court and an order of status quo was granted by the Supreme Court and the same is pending consideration. In view of the same, the action of the respondent-authorities in seeking to regularize the land belonging to the protected tenants in favour of persons who were in occupation as per G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.20908 cannot be sustained. 35. The party respondents are represented by learned Senior Counsel Sri E. Manohar, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Sri P. Sri Raghuram, Sri Vedula Srinivas and other counsel. It is submitted that GGT acting through its Trustees/fit persons alienated the land of the Trust from to time for a valuable consideration to various societies and the societies in turn allotted plots to its members. It is submitted that GGT acting through its Trustees/fit persons alienated the land of the Trust from to time for a valuable consideration to various societies and the societies in turn allotted plots to its members. The societies have developed the land and layouts are made. Subsequently, permissions were accorded and thousands of constructions were made in the land. Pursuant to the formulation of regularization scheme in G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.2008 after the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 the impleaded respondents submitted applications to the State Government for regularization duly paying the prescribed fees, but the same could not be processed due to the pendency of the present writ petitions. It is submitted that since the proceedings under the ULC Act have been validly passed the land possessed by the Trust in excess of the ceiling limit vested in Government and the Government in best public interest taken decision to regularize the land/plots which were in occupation of third parties. Such discretion of the Government cannot be found fault with. 36. It is further submitted that Writ Petition No.9714 of 2009 filed as public interest litigation is not maintainable against a statutory order passed by the authority under the provisions of the ULC Act and the petitioner has not satisfied the parameters of public interest litigation. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the party respondents that since the GGT has contravened and violated the statutory exemption granted under Section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act and did not retain the possession and possession of excess land was handed over to the State, it became the holder of surplus land. Therefore, the GGT is not entitled for restoration of the property. Merely because the sale transactions were declared as invalid, the property cannot be restored back to the Trust. The party respondents who purchased the land/plots for valuable consideration having due regard to the exemption granted by the competent authority under section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act, cannot be deprived of the land and having due regard to that aspect, the government formulated a scheme for regularization of occupation even though the sale transactions were held to be invalid. It is further submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. 37. It is further submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. 37. Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel appearing for some of the party respondents contended that in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.747 formulating a scheme for regularization. Since the judgment of this Court was not challenged by any party and the same having become final, the action of the Government in seeking to regularize the occupation of the party respondents as per G.O.Ms.No.747 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 38. Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for President of Arya Samaj, Banswada, Nizamabad and President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabhya, Andhra Pradesh, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions for impleadment. 39. Learned Advocate General submitted that when the Trust sold away the vacant lands, the exemption under section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act ceased to apply, therefore, the provisions of the ULC Act will have application and accordingly the Special Officer & Competent Authority proceeded with the determination of excess land. The Society having filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act in 1976 itself cannot complain that no notice was issued. Though notice was served on the Fit Person of the Trust to file objections against the order dated 4.8.2005 passed under section 8(1) of the Act within 30 days, he did not file any objections. He submitted that exemption granted under section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act will be available so long as the lands continue to be required and used by the Trust. Since the lands were sold away by the Trust, the exemption is of no avail to the Trust. Number of alienations have been made misusing the exemption granted by the competent authority, therefore, Government after taking into consideration the entire material and the fact situation obtaining and also keeping in view the directions of this Hon’ble Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch decided to regularize the occupation of 3rd parties as per G.O.Ms.No.747 under which a general scheme applicable to the entire State was formulated for regularization of land/plots in occupation of third parties in best public interest. The writ petitions are filed at a belated stage after formulation of the scheme of regularization and when applications are pending for regularization. 40. The writ petitions are filed at a belated stage after formulation of the scheme of regularization and when applications are pending for regularization. 40. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the various provisions of Indian Trusts Act, 1881 referred to by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9714 and 16658 of 2009 and some of the party respondents have no application to the case on hand. The Endowments Act, 1987 alone has application and various orders issued by the Commissioner of Endowments were never challenged. The rights under the Trusts Act are confined only to the Trustees of the Trust and in the event of any dispute a mechanism has been provided which the concerned have to avail. In the instant case, the Trustees have not availed any rights under the Trusts Act. The proceedings under the ULC Act having attained finality and the excess land having been surrendered by the Trust and vested in the Government, the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act cannot have any application. Though a gazette notification was issued on 8.12.2005 calling upon all the persons interested in vacant land found to be in excess of the limit to appear on or before 15.12.2005 none appeared and therefore a notice under section 10 (5) of the ULC Act was issued calling upon the Fit person to surrender the excess land to the Government and the Fit person accordingly surrendered possession on 19.4.2006 under a panchanama. Learned Advocate General, therefore, submitted that the excess land of the Trust has validly been vested in the State and the petitioners have not been able to make out a case to interfere with the orders passed by the Special Officer & Competent Authority as confirmed by the Commissioner, Appeals. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 41. As regards the case of the protected tenants, learned Advocate General submitted that no regularization of occupation by third parties has been undertaken by the respondent-authorities during the pendency of the SLPs and denied the contention that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.747 disobeying the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the claim of protected tenants is restricted to part of land, they cannot interdict regularization of the remaining extent of land. When the claim of protected tenants is restricted to part of land, they cannot interdict regularization of the remaining extent of land. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the Government is seriously considering the proposal submitted by the Special Officer to set apart at least 20% as suggested by the Special Officer to enable the Trust to carry out its activities for the purpose for which the Trust was established. FINDINGS: 42. Facts narrated above are not in dispute. A careful scrutiny of the material placed on record clearly discloses that the matter has become complicated because the Trust as well as the various departments of the State has not properly acted in dealing with the valuable properties held by the Trust. Admittedly, the Trust filed its declaration under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976 on 9.9.1976, that is, much earlier to the Trust obtaining permissions under section 19(1) of the ULC Act in 1982. When the authorities of ULC have come to the notice that the Trust is selling away the lands of the Trust illegally under the guise of exemption obtained, they should have taken steps to protect the lands of the Trust, instead, the Special Officer permitted the registering authority to release the sale deeds. The situation has become more complex when members of the societies were allowed to develop the land by obtaining layouts from the Gram Panchayat and making constructions in the land. Material placed on record further discloses that several constructions have come in the disputed land, even electrical sub-station by the Electricity Board and a reservoir by the Water Works Department were constructed. 43. There is no dispute that after coming into force of ULC Act, 1976 in the State of Andhra Pradesh, GGT filed a declaration in Form I under Section 6(1) of the Act on 9.9.1976. While the declaration of the GGT was pending a resolution was passed by the Trust on 19.3.1981 to sell away large extents of lands of the Trust on the ground that lands of the Trust are under illegal encroachment. The Special Officer & Competent Authority issued orders dated 10.12.1981 declaring the Trust as exempted under section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act. Competent Authority also issued certificate dated 20.4.1982 granting exemption under section 19(1)(vi). Thereafter, the President of the GGT started alienating large extents of land of the Trust. The Special Officer & Competent Authority issued orders dated 10.12.1981 declaring the Trust as exempted under section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act. Competent Authority also issued certificate dated 20.4.1982 granting exemption under section 19(1)(vi). Thereafter, the President of the GGT started alienating large extents of land of the Trust. Subsequently, the competent authority under the ULC Act proceeded with the declaration filed by the GGT under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act and ultimately proceedings dated 4.8.2005 were issued declaring that the Trust was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit which were confirmed by the Commissioner of Appeals. Before we deal with the legality of the proceedings under the ULC Act, let us consider the applicability of the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions s and Endowments Act, 1987. Whether provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or the provisions of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 have application to GGT. 44. The petitioners in W.P.No.9714 and 16658 of 2009 and some of the party respondents contended that the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act (Act 30 of 1987) have no application to GGT and the provisions of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 alone have application. In this regard, our task has become easier in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch wherein this Court had an occasion to deal with the applicability of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (Act 17 of 1966) as well as the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) to GGT. In this case, the Division Bench was dealing with the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.703 dated 30.9.2000 wherein the Government invalidated the sale transactions made by the GGT. Act 17 of 1966 which came into force w.e.f 26.1.1967 was repealed by Act 30 of 1987 which came into force w.e.f. 23.5.1987. 45. Before the Division Bench, a similar contention was urged that the provisions of the Endowments Act have no application to GGT. Act 17 of 1966 which came into force w.e.f 26.1.1967 was repealed by Act 30 of 1987 which came into force w.e.f. 23.5.1987. 45. Before the Division Bench, a similar contention was urged that the provisions of the Endowments Act have no application to GGT. While appreciating the said contention, the Division Bench took notice of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments in Rc.No.J3/3529/89 dated 14.3.1989 wherein the Commissioner in exercise of the powers under section 6 of Act 30 of 1987 published a list of charitable institutions which includes GGT. The Commissioner also appointed an Executive Officer to manage the affairs of the Trust who is called ‘Fit Person’. The Division Bench after considering the provisions of both the enactments i.e. Act 17 of 1966 and Act 30 of 1987 and the definitions – ‘Charitable Institutions”, ‘charitable endowment’ and ‘charitable purpose’ held as under: “…The provisions are, undoubtedly, applicable and the Trust in law is required to conduct the management of its affairs strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act 17 of 1966 so long as it was in force and thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 which continues to be in force as on the date. Mere fact that the authorities failed to act in the matter to get the institution registered under the provisions of the Act is of no legal consequence.” In view of the above, we are unable to agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the Government has no control over GGT. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has attained finality. Therefore, we hold that the provisions of the Endowments Act have application to GGT. Whether the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 have application to GGT: 46. As regards the applicability of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (Act 2 of 1882) (for short ‘the Trusts Act’), we may notice the preamble of the Act which reads thus: “An Act to define and amend the law relating to Private Trusts and Trustees. Whereas it is expedient to define and amend the law relating to private Trusts and Trustees, it is hereby enacted as follows:” Therefore, from the preamble of the Indian Trusts Act, it is evident that the Trusts Act has application only to private Trusts and has no application to the Public Trusts. Whereas it is expedient to define and amend the law relating to private Trusts and Trustees, it is hereby enacted as follows:” Therefore, from the preamble of the Indian Trusts Act, it is evident that the Trusts Act has application only to private Trusts and has no application to the Public Trusts. Further, the savings clause under Section 1 which excludes public or private religious or charitable endowments from the purview of the Act reads thus: “Savings: But nothing herein contained affects the rules of Mohammedan law as to waqf, or the mutual relations of the members of an undivided family as determined by any customary or personal law, or applies to public or private religious or charitable endowments, or to Trusts to distribute prizes taken in war among the captors; and nothing in the Second Chapter of this Act applies to Trusts created before the said day.” 47. From the above, it is clear that a public or private religious or a charitable endowment is exempted from the purview of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Admittedly, GGT was a Trust established for charitable public purpose and not for a private purpose. The non-applicability of the Act to Trusts established for charitable public purpose is more evident from the Statement of Objects and reasons. To the extent relevant the statement of objects and reasons read thus: “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS: Trusts in the strict sense in which that term is used by English lawyers, thatis to say, confidences to the existence of which a ‘legal’ and an ‘equitable’ estate are necessary, are unknown to Hindu and Muhammadan Law. But Trusts in the wider sense of the word, that is to say, obligations annexed to the ownership of property which arise out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner for the benefit of another, are constantly created by the natives of India and are frequently enforced by our courts. But Trusts in the wider sense of the word, that is to say, obligations annexed to the ownership of property which arise out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner for the benefit of another, are constantly created by the natives of India and are frequently enforced by our courts. ‘There is probably’ says Justice Phear, ‘no country in the world where fiduciary relations exhibit themselves so extensively and in such varied forms as in India, and possession of dominion over property, coupled with the obligation use is, either whilly or partially, for the benefit of other than the possessor, is, I imagine, familiar to every Hindu.’ So, too, in the case of Muhammadans, where a woman is entitled to a share of her deceased father’s estate in the hands of her brother or to exigible dower in the hands of her husband. Trusts created by an old man for his own maintenance and ulterior purposes, for a widow, for a daughter, step-daughter or daughter-in-law and her children are of pretty frequent occurrence amongst the natives, whether Hindu or Muhammadan, and it is desirable to keep them free from the complication of double estates in which, without the intervention of the Legislature, they are certain to become entangled. But apart from the native property-holder, there is the large body of domiciled Europeans and Eurasians who have for nearly a century enjoyed and taken advantage of a Trust law recognized by our courts; the number and wealth of this class have increased, and in suits between members of this community every court in the country may be called upon to administer a Trust law. Nevertheless, with the exception of certain provisions in the Penal Code, the Specific Relief Act, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act, the Indian Statute Book is silent on the subject so far as regards the bulk of the population,; for the Statute of Frauds, Section 7 to 11, is in force only in the Presidency towns, and the rules contained in Acts XXVII and XXVIII of 1866 extend only to cases to which English law is applicable, and are, in themselves, incomplete. The objects of the present Bill is to codify the law relating to Trusts in the wider sense above described; but it saves the rules of Muhammadan law as to waqf, and the mutual relations of the members of an undivided family, and it leaves untouched religious and charitable endowments, established by Hindu and Buddhists, as being matters in which the Legislature cannot at present usefully interfere further or otherwise than has been done by Act XX of 1863.” 48. Therefore, it is clear from the preamble and the statement of objects and reasons of the Trusts Act that the Act is intended only for Trusts established for private purpose and not for Trusts established for public or charitable purposes. As per Section 2 of Endowments Act “Charitable Endowment” means all property given or endowed for any charitable purpose. Admittedly, in the instant case, the GGT was created for a charitable purpose and property was endowed for a charitable public purpose and not for any private purpose. The property endowed was to be utilized for the benefit of the public by establishing Schools, Colleges, training institutions etc. in the field of education and philanthropic institutions for the benefit of the society at large. Thus, the GGT is a Trust created for welfare of the public at large and not for private purpose. Therefore, in our considered view, the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act have no application to GGT. In this regard, we may also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in JOINT COMMISISONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, ADMNL DEPARTMENT V. JAYUARAMAN ( (2006) 1 scc 257 ). In this case, an extent of Ac.10.38 acres of land was given as grant by the Government for a temple in Tamilnadu for the purpose of the use of its income for the poojas and maintenance. The land was put in the possession of one Veerana Pandram who was the poojari. Under Section 63(b) of Tamilandu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 the successors of Veerana Pandram were recognized as trustees of the temple. Subsequently, the Settlement Tahsildar, Madurai passed an order for issue of ryotwari pattas in their favour though the Endowments Department was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Under Section 63(b) of Tamilandu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 the successors of Veerana Pandram were recognized as trustees of the temple. Subsequently, the Settlement Tahsildar, Madurai passed an order for issue of ryotwari pattas in their favour though the Endowments Department was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings. After some litigation in the High Court and before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, the claimants filed an application in the Court of the District Judge of Dindigual under section 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882 for sale of the properties which was allowed and the same was upheld by the High Court. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that once the claimants had got themselves appointed as hereditary trustees by applying the provisions under the Act, they could not thereafter shed their character as trustees of the temples. The Supreme Court held: “Prima facie, government land had been dedicated to the temples by way of grants by the Government. Even if the income therefrom had alone been dedicated to the temples, it would still be a religious trust or endowment and certainly not a private trust to which the Trusts Act, 1882 would apply. Section 1 of the Trusts Act, 1882 itself provides that nothing contained therein applies to public or private religious or charitable endowments. The endowment here was certainly not a private endowment since there is no case that the temples are private. The endowment was for a religious purpose, the conducting of poojas in the temples and the maintenance of the temples, and the maintenance of the temples. Therefore, endowment was of public property for the benefit of public temples and the poojaris constituted the trustees. They were trustees imposed with the obligation of pending the income from the properties, for the poojas and maintenance of the temple. It was clearly a case of public religious endowment and by virtue of Section 1 of the Act, the Trusts Act, 1882 would have nl application. The Government had dedicated the properties or the income there from for the upkeep of public temples. It was not a private trust coming within the purview of the Trusts Act, 1882. The endowment, gift or donation, was governed by the HR & CE Act. The Government had dedicated the properties or the income there from for the upkeep of public temples. It was not a private trust coming within the purview of the Trusts Act, 1882. The endowment, gift or donation, was governed by the HR & CE Act. Even if one were to accept the case of the claimants that it was an inam granted to an archaka, the same would come within the definition of ‘religious endowment’ or ‘endowment’ under the HR & CE Act in view of Explanation (1) to Section 6(17). Any alienation would, prima facie, be hit by Section 34 of the HR & CE Act and even if the case of the claimants were to be taken at face value, the transaction would be hit by section 41 of the HR & CE Act. In either case, the permission contemplated by the respective sections was a must and the District Court lacked jurisdiction to give the permission for sale on an application under Section 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882, that too, without issuing notice to and hearing the authorities under the HR & CE Act. The Court was completely in error in brushing aside this vital aspect while considering whether the District Judge had acted within jurisdiction in entertaining the application under Section 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882”. 49. In the instant case, the institution was a charitable institution established for the welfare of the general public and the Commissioner of Endowments recognized the Trust as a Charitable Institution in the list published by the Department. From the observations of the Supreme Court it is clear that that the Trusts Act has no application to public religious or charitable endowments. In Thayarammal (Dead) By L.R. v. Kanakammal and others ( (2005) 1 SCC 457 )the Supreme Court held that the Indian Trusts Act as clear by its preamble and contents is applicable only to private trusts and not to public trusts. 50. From a careful perusal of the trust deed in the present case, it is clear that the trust created has the nature and character of a public charitable trust or Charitable Endowment as defined under the provisions of the Endowment Act, 1987 meant for public purposes such as establishment of educational institutions and other institutions for the welfare of a larger public and not intended to be created as a private Trust. Mere registration of the trust under the provisions of the Trusts Act does not alter the character and nature of GGT which is admittedly a public charitable trust, particularly when the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act have no application to the public charitable trusts. The GGT fulfilled the conditions of a charitable Trust as defined under the provisions of the Endowments Act. Therefore, we find no force in the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of Indian Trusts Act have application to GGT and thus Government has no control over the management and affairs of the GGT. As rightly urged by the learned Advocate General various provisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners and some of the party respondents have application only in cases where a dispute arose as to the rights of the Trustees under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act where the Trusts Act has application. Only in such cases the disputes are to be resolved in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in accordance with the mechanism provided in the Indian Trusts Act. 51. The contention is liable to be rejected for yet another reason. It may be noted that none of the parties have challenged the orders of the Commissioner dated 14.3.1989 publishing a list of charitable institutions which included the GGT as a charitable institution under the provisions of the Endowments Act and taking over the Trust by the Endowments Department on the ground that the provisions of Endowments Act have no application and it is the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act which are attracted to the Trust. The registration of the institution under the provisions of the Endowments Act was also not challenged and the writ petition filed by Kishanlal appointing an Executive Officer to the Trust was dismissed by this Court. Further, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch holding that the provisions of the Endowments Act have application to the Trust is also not challenged and the same had become final. Therefore, in the absence of a successful challenge to the above, the contention that the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act are attracted to the GGT is of no avail to the petitioners. Therefore, in the absence of a successful challenge to the above, the contention that the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act are attracted to the GGT is of no avail to the petitioners. Even the various orders issued by the Government and the Commissioner of Endowments from time to time under the provisions of the Endowments Act were also not challenged on the ground that the provisions of the Endowments Act have no application and that the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act alone have application. Further, on one hand the petitioners are contending that the provisions of the Endowments Act have no application and the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act have application but on the other hand they are taking shelter under the provisions of the Endowments Act contending that the Trust can continue to enjoy the exemption granted under section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act and the lands stand divested to the Trust after the alienations had been invalidated by the orders of the Division Bench of this Court and the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.703 dated 30.9.2000. They cannot blow hot and cold at the same breathe and cannot take such a plea in view of the fact that exemption was granted under the provisions of ULC Act because the Trust was treated as a ‘charitable institution’ and the property was a charitable endowment for a charitable public purpose. No provision of law has been brought to our notice that the provisions of Indian Trusts Act are exempted from the provisions of the ULC Act. In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of Indian Trusts Act have application to GGT cannot be accepted. 52. Therefore, we hold that the provisions of the Endowments Act have application to the GGT and Government has control over the properties of the Trust and it is amenable to the provisions of the ULC Act and the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act have no application as regards the management and control over the affairs of the Trust. In our opinion, the power and authority of the Government to manage and control over the affairs of the GGT in accordance with the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 is unaffected by the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act. Legality of proceedings under the ULC Act: 53. In our opinion, the power and authority of the Government to manage and control over the affairs of the GGT in accordance with the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 is unaffected by the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act. Legality of proceedings under the ULC Act: 53. Now, we will revert back to the issue of legality of the orders dated 4.8.2005 issued by the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC. Chapter III of the ULC Act, 1976 deals with ceiling on vacant land. Section 19 provides that the provisions of Chapter III have no application to certain vacant lands held by the organizations enumerated thereunder. Section 19 of the ULC Act reads as under: “19: Chapter not to apply to certain vacant lands (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), nothing in this Chapter shall apply to any vacant land held by- (i) the Central Government or any State Government, or any local authority or any Corporation established by or under a Central or Provincial or State Act or any Government company as defined in (S.617 of the Companies Act, 1956); (ii) any military, naval or air force institution; (iii) any bank. (iv) any public charitable or religious Trust (including wakf) and required and used for any public charitable or religious purposes: Provided that the exemption under this clause shall apply only so long as such land continues to be required and used for such purposes by such Trust; (v) any co-operative society, being a land mortgage bank or a housing co- operative society, registered or deemed to be registered under any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force : Provided that the exemption under this clause, in relation to a land mortgage bank, shall not apply to any vacant land held by it otherwise than in satisfaction of its dues; (vi) any such educational, cultural, technical or scientific institution or club [not being a Corporation established by or under a Central or Provincial or State Act referred to in clause (i) or a society referred to in clause as may be approved for the purposes of this clause by the State Government by general or special order, on application made to it in this behalf by such institution or club or otherwise: Provided that no approval under this clause shall be accorded by the State Government unless that Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do having regard to the nature and scope of the activities of the institution or club concerned, the extent of the vacant land required bona fide for the purposes of such institution or club and other relevant factors; (vii) any society registered under (Societies Registration Act, 1860) or under any other corresponding law for the time being in force and used for any nonprofit and non-commercial purpose; (viii) a foreign State for the purposes of its diplomatic and consular missions or for such other official purposes as may be approved by the Central Government or for the residence of the members of the said missions; (ix) the United Nations and its specialized agencies for any official purpose or for the residence of the members of their staff; (x) any international organization for any official purpose or for the residence of the members of the staff of such organization: Provided that the exemption under this clause shall apply only if there is an agreement between the Government of India and such international organization that such land shall be so exempted. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not be construed as granting any exemption in favour of any person, other than an authority, institution or organization specified in sub-section (1), who possesses any vacant land which is owned by such authority, institution or organization or who owns any vacant land which is in the possession of such authority, institution or organization: Provided that where any vacant land which is in the possession of such authority, institution or organization, but owned by any other person, is declared as excess vacant land under this Chapter, such authority, institution or organization shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any of the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, continue to possess such land under the State Government on the same terms and conditions subject to which it possessed such land immediately before such declaration. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "to possess vacant land" means to possess such land either as tenant or as mortgagee or under a hire-purchase agreement or under an irrevocable power of attorney or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity or capacities. 54. From a reading of Sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 above, it is clear that the provisions of Chapter III of ULC Act will have no application in respect of vacant lands held by any public charitable or religious Trust (including wakf) where the required land is used for any public charitable or religious purpose. The proviso thereunder provides that the exemption under the said clause shall apply only so long as such land continues to be required and used for such purposes by such Trust. Having regard to the same, the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad in proceedings No.B2/4933/76 dated 10.12.1981 declared that the vacant land held by GGT to the extent of Ac.594.42 is exempted under Section 19(1)(iv) and the file is closed. Subsequently, however, S.O. & C.A issued certificate dated 20.4.1982 stating that Gurukul Ghatakesar Trust satisfied the conditions laid down in Clause (vi) of subsection 1 of Section 19 and as such the Trust is entitled to get the benefit of exemption provided in section 19(1) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 19 to the extent of Ac.588.38 gts. 55. 55. On the basis of the exemptions obtained from the S.O. & C.A the then President of the Trust sold away almost all the lands held by the Trust to Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Housing Society, A.P. State Housing Corporation and other societies under various registered sale deeds in the year 1982. The societies developed the land obtaining layouts from the Gram Panchayat and in turn sold away plots to its members and developed the land into colonies. When the concerned Sub-Registrar did not release the sale deeds in favour of members for want of clarification, it appears that the SO & CA by letter dated 7.6.1982 addressed to the Joint Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, Mehdipatnam informed that the land held by Swamy Ayyappa Coop. Housing Society Ltd., Hyderabad is exempted under section 19(1)(v), therefore, the documents executed by the society may be released. 56. While things stood thus, considering the provisions under section 80(1)(c) of the Endowments Act the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.703 Revenue (Endowments. II) Department dated 30.9.2000 declaring the sale transductions made by the Trust upto the year 1987 as invalid on the ground that the management of the Trust after obtaining exemption under section 19(1) (iv) of ULC Act without obtaining permission/prior sanction from the competent authority as required under section 80(1) of the Endowments Act sold away the lands. As already stated, the said orders of the Government were challenged in W.P.No.1671 of 2001 and batch. This Court by common judgment dated 15.10.2003 in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch disposed of the said writ petitions and the appeals preferred against the orders passed in W.P.No.14287 of 1999 dated 28.9.2001 wherein the Commissioner of Kukatpally Municipality insisted for production of NOC from the Revenue Department for regularization of the constructions. This Court by the common judgment while holding that the provisions of Act 30 of 1987 have application to GGT, on interpretation of the provisions of sections 80 and 81 of Endowment Act (Act 30 of 1987), held that the requirement of prior sanction is mandatory in its nature and non-compliance of the same is fatal to the alienations made as grant of sanction by the competent authority is not a matter of any empty formality or ritual. The Division Bench further held: “19. The Division Bench further held: “19. That a plain reading of the provisions referred to supra makes it abundantly clear that any alienation of immovable property belonging to any charitable institution or endowment without the prior sanction of the Commissioner shall be null land void. There cannot be any sale of immovable properties belonging to any charitable or religious institution or endowment without complying with the formalities specified in the said provisions. A further reading of Section 81 of Act 30 of 1987 makes it abundantly clear that the legislature intended to invalidate all the unauthorized alienations by way of sale, exchange or mortgage belonging to any charitable or religious institution or endowment without the prior sanction of the Commissioner or the Government, as the case may be. It is a clear legislative declaration. The provisions provide for the consequences of alienation of immovable properties belonging to a charitable or religious institution or endowment without prior sanction of the Commissioner or the Government, as the case may be, since all such transactions are declared as null and void and shall be deemed to have been never effected. Such transactions of alienations without the prior sanction of the Commissioner or the Government, as the case may be, confers no right, title or interest over such property in any person acquiring the property by such transaction and it further declares that all such properties alienated without the prior sanction of the Commissioner shall lbe deemed to the property of the institution or the endowment concerned any person in possession of such property shall be deemed to be an encroacher against whom appropriate proceedings under the Act could be initiated. 20.) The provisions do not admit more than one interpretation. The requirement of prior sanction is mandatory in its nature and non-compliance there of is fatal to the alienation so made. The grant of sanction by the competent authority is not a matter of any empty formality or ritual. Sanction may be accorded only in cases where the competent authority considers that the proposed transaction is (i) prudent and necessary or beneficial to the institution, or endowment; (ii) in respect of immovable property which is un-economical for the institution or endowment to own and maintain; and (iii) the consideration therefore is adequate and proper. Sanction may be accorded only in cases where the competent authority considers that the proposed transaction is (i) prudent and necessary or beneficial to the institution, or endowment; (ii) in respect of immovable property which is un-economical for the institution or endowment to own and maintain; and (iii) the consideration therefore is adequate and proper. It is not the satisfaction of those who are entrusted with the management of the institution concerned, but it is the satisfaction of the competent authority as provided for under the provisions referred to hereinabove. In such view of the matter, the so-called resolution purported to have been passed by the Trust authorizing its President to alienate the immovable properties of the Trust on the ground that “retention of possession on the lands has also become highly impossible and it would be more beneficial to dispose of the lands, etc.” is of no consequence. Such resolutions cannot override the statutory provisions. The genuineness of resolution itself is seriously disputed by the State as well as Fit Person about which we do not propose to make any further enquiry.” 57. The Division Bench has also taken notice of the well settled and well accepted rule of construction that when consequence of nullification on failure to comply with the prescribed requirement is provided by the statute itself, such statutory requirement must be interpreted as mandatory. Further placing reliance on the principle stated by Lord Campbell as to the intention of the Legislature in an enactment and the decisions of the Supreme Court in M.Pentaiah v Muddala Veeramallappa (AIR 1961SC 1107) and B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka ((1987) 1SCC 658)held that the transactions of sale of lands belonging to GGT by its president are invalid, void ab initio and the same do not confer any valid title upon the purchasers and the said transactions are hit by the mandatory provisions of the Act 17 of 1966 as well as Act 30 of 1987. The Division Bench rejected the contention that required sanction in law shall be deemed to have been granted since the Government as well as the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC granted exemption exempting the lands held by the GGT from the provisions of ULC Act. 58. As already stated, the above judgment of this Court has attained finality inasmuch as none of the parties carried the matter in appeal. 59. 58. As already stated, the above judgment of this Court has attained finality inasmuch as none of the parties carried the matter in appeal. 59. In the context of the orders of this Court invalidating the sale transactions, the implication of the proviso under sub-clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of ULC Act assumes importance. Aggrieved by the order of the competent authority determining that the Trust is holding land to the extent of 23,16,839.02 sq. meters GGT preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals who rejected it by order dated 24.1.2007. It may be noted here that after grant of exemption under section 19(1)(iv) on 10.12.1981 the competent authority closed the file. The implication of grant of exemption under the provisions of ULC Act is for the purpose that the land is required to be used for avowed objects of the Trust and not for making alienations. However, the former President of GGT under the guise of exemption granted by the competent authority illegally sold away the lands of the Trust treating the exemption as permission to sell away the lands held by the Trust. In the objections filed by before the Commissioner, Appeals, the GGT took the plea that in view of exemption under section 19(1)(iv) and the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.703 and the judgment of the High Court upholding the orders of the Government invalidating the sale transactions, Trust is entitled to have the title of entire land. On an appreciation of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, the appellate authority held thus: “A plain reading of Section 19(1)(iv) clearly shows that a Trust will be exempted from ULC Act “only so long as such land continues to be required and used for such purposes by such Trust”. The Special Officer has given order to this effect. The same Trust again obtained exemption under section 19(1)(vi). The State Government are competent to accord such exemption, but not the Special Officer & Competent Authority. It is not known how the Trust which originally enjoyed redemption u/s 19(1)(iv) suddenly become eligible for exemption u/s 19(1)(vi) and the Special Officer and Competent Authority has no jurisdiction or authority to issue such certificate but he issued the certificate. This is without authority and jurisdiction. It is not known how the Trust which originally enjoyed redemption u/s 19(1)(iv) suddenly become eligible for exemption u/s 19(1)(vi) and the Special Officer and Competent Authority has no jurisdiction or authority to issue such certificate but he issued the certificate. This is without authority and jurisdiction. The intention of the Trust in obtaining 19(1)(vi) does not appear to be fair and it has obtained exemption certificate to alienate the lands, but not for the benefit of the Trust. The exemption obtained under section 19(1)(iv)is not conducive to alienate the lands, the person incharge of the Trust obtained an erroneous exemption under section 19(1) (vi) by specifically requesting for such certificate and as soon as it was given, alienation of lands started. Hence exemption under section 19(1)(iv) automticalloy ceases and ULC Act is attracted and the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC taken up the case and conducted proceedings as per the provisions of the ULC (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Rules, 1976”. 60. There is no dispute that the GGT has obtained permissions both under Section 19 (1)(iv) as well as under Section 19(1)(vi). There is also no dispute that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2009 holding that the sale transactions made by the former president of GGT and his GPA are illegal has become final. The legal effect of the judgment is that the land reverts back to the Trust. Now, the question is whether the S.O. & C.A can recommence the proceedings under the ULC on the premise that the Trust has violated the exemption granted under Section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act? The contention of the S.O. & C.A is that since the Trust has violated the exemption, the exemption shall not subsist and accordingly the proceedings were commenced and held that the Trust was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit and the land so determined shall vest in the State. It was further contended even otherwise also the Trust has failed to establish that the land is required and used by the trust for the purposes of the Trust and therefore under the proviso to clause (iv) of sub-section 1 of Section 19 the land shall stand vested in the State. We are not inclined to accede to the said contention. We are not inclined to accede to the said contention. Admittedly, the Trust has filed declaration under the provisions of ULC Act on 9.9.1976. But the Special Officer & Competent Authority, ULC has not proceeded with it and it is only when the sale transactions were declared invalid by the Government and affirmed by this Court, thought of re-commencing the proceedings and ultimately determined that the Trust was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit to the extent of 23,16,839.02 sq. meters. The exemption under Section 19, being statutory, it was not open for competent authority to treat it as dissolved automatically. The trust being an inanimate person, cannot be deprived of statutory exemption on account of illegal and unauthorized alienations by one of it’s trustees. Instead of taking steps for invalidation of the sale transactions, the Special Officer & Competent Authority itself has permitted the Registering Authority by order dated 7.6.1982 to release the documents which were withheld, observing the illegal alienations as a mute spectator. This conduct on the part of the S.O. & C.A raises serious doubts. The repeal of ULC Act, 1976 has come into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.3.2008 as per Adoption of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 in the State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (UC.I) dated 22.4.2008. The exemption under section 19(i)(iv) was granted on the premise that the land is required and to be used for any public charitable purposes of the Trust and not permitting the Trust to sell away the land. Once the sale transactions made by the trust were declared invalid not only the land reverts back to the Trust but also it continues to have the exemption granted under Section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act because such exemption was granted to utilize the land for charitable purposes of the Trust. Had the exemption been withdrawn or cancelled immediately after noticing that the Trust has mis-utilised the exemption or after the sale transactions were declared invalid, things would have been different. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Appeals, ULC that in view of the alienation of lands, the exemption granted under section 19(1)(iv) automatically ceases and the provisions of the ULC Act are attracted is not correct. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Appeals, ULC that in view of the alienation of lands, the exemption granted under section 19(1)(iv) automatically ceases and the provisions of the ULC Act are attracted is not correct. The Commissioner has failed to appreciate the legal implication of nullification of the sale transactions by the Division Bench of this Court and erroneously held that the exemption ceased to exist. In our view neither the Special Officer & Competent Authority nor Commissioner of Appeals /has jurisdiction to recommence the proceedings under the ULC Act. 61. No doubt, the proviso under section 19(1)(iv) says that the exemption under the said clause shall apply only so long as such land continues to be required and used for such purposes of the Trust. The learned counsel for the party respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raizur Rehman Khan and others vs. State of U.P. and others ( (1997) 2 SCC 248 ) wherein it was held that if the trust is not able to establish that the land is required and used by the trust for the purposes of the Trust, it cannot avail the exemption and land vests in the State. In the said case, the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with Section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act, 1976, which arose out of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court held: “6. The High Court when interpreting the provision has taken the view that the vacant land held by such Trust if it is required and used for any public, charitable or religious purposes is exempt from the purview of the ceiling Act but the proviso very clearly adds a rider that such exemption shall apply only so long as such land continues to be required and used for such purpose by such Trust. The emphasis is that vacant land which is sought to be retrieved from the provisions of the Ceiling Act, must be “required and used” for any public, charitable or religious purpose. The emphasis is that vacant land which is sought to be retrieved from the provisions of the Ceiling Act, must be “required and used” for any public, charitable or religious purpose. It would, thus, be obligatory on the Trust or the waqf, as the case may be, to plead and establish that such vacant land has been kept “required and used” for such of the purposes as mentioned therein and claim for exemption cannot be laid merely on the footing that such vacant land is precious or likely to fetch some income, if put to proper use. At the same time, it is to be understood that if such land is otherwise income-giving, other than agricultural, then it is out of the scope of sub-clause (iv) of Section 19 as such purpose cannot be termed as a public, charitable and/or religious purpose. Instantly, no need of such kind of any particular plot of land has been pleaded by the appellant in order to establish that it was put and was expected to be put to use for any public, religious or charitable purposes devised by the wakf…. “ 62. Placing reliance on the above, the learned counsel for the party respondents contended that since the Trust has failed to establish that the vacant land has been kept ‘required and used’ for the purposes of the Trust, the land automatically stand vested in the State. We are not inclined to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the party respondents for the following reasons. The fact of the matter is that the then President of the Trust who was incharge of the affairs of the Trust, has not acted lawfully for the benefit of the Trust and sold away the land illegally for his selfish interest. For the misdeeds committed by the President of the Trust, the Trust which has been established for the welfare of the public at large cannot be put to jeopardy and the aims and the objects for which it was established by the founders of the Trust would not be allowed to be defeated. Further in view of various proceedings and litigation pending before the various authorities and the High Court, the Trust could not carry out the activities and virtually the activities of the trust came to a standstill. Further in view of various proceedings and litigation pending before the various authorities and the High Court, the Trust could not carry out the activities and virtually the activities of the trust came to a standstill. In such circumstances, it would be difficult for the trust to establish that the land is required and used for the purposes of the Trust. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that since the sale transactions were declared invalid by this Court, the land cannot vest in the State and the Trust will continue to enjoy the land. In such circumstances, the recommencement of the proceedings under the ULC Act is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. 63. For the above reasons, we hold that the proceedings of the Special Officer and & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad dated 4.8.2005 determining that the Trust was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit as affirmed by the Commissioner, Appeals by his order dated 24.1.2007 are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 64. Another aspect of the matter is that that the so-called taking over of possession by the Special Officer & Competent Authority on 19.4.2006 is doubtful because the land was admittedly in illegal occupation of third parties where numerous structures existed in the land for the last several years. It is not the case of the respondent-authorities that all the dwellers who were in occupation of the land were evicted and the land was free from human habitation. 65. In the view we have taken, the resolution dated 29.5.2010 said to have been passed by the Board of Trustees of GGT authorizing the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Hyderabad to take over the management of the GGT, all institutions, movable and immovable properties of GGT is of no consequence and cannot be acted upon for the reason that the GGT was held to be in possession of the land and the State has control over the affairs of the GGT. Regularization of the lands in occupation of party respondents as per the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.747. 66. Regularization of the lands in occupation of party respondents as per the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.747. 66. Now the next question that arises for consideration is, whether the Government can apply G.O.Ms.No.747 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 18.6.2008 wherein a general scheme was formulated for allotment of excess land which vested in the Government and possession of which has been taken over by the Government under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 to the party respondents who are in occupation of Trust land? 67. It may be noted here that in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch, it was brought to the notice of the Court that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.405 Revenue (Endowments.II) Department dated 4.7.2002 for regularization of unauthorized encroachments without prejudice to the right of institutions to evict the encroachments and Government prescribed elaborate procedure to regularize those encroachments in urban areas that existed as on 31st December, 1990.The Division Bench held that Section 89 of Act 30 of 1987 confers power and jurisdiction upon the Commissioner of Endowments to pass an order directing the Trustee or other person in charge of the management of the institution or endowment to enter into a compromise if the other party to a suit or other legal proceedings is willing to enter into a compromise under such terms and conditions which he considers acceptable in the interest of the institution or endowment. Holding so, the Division Bench gave liberty to the writ petitioners therein to approach the Commissioner of Endowments as well as the Government seeking appropriate relief, in which event, the Commissioner of Endowments and/or the Government shall consider the same subject to such terms and conditions as they may consider fit and proper in the background of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of the observations made in the judgment. It was also directed that the writ petitioners, if they are so interested, may file appropriate applications before the competent authorities within eight weeks from the date of the judgment and in such an event the same shall be disposed of within four months from the date of filing of the same. 68. The material placed on record discloses that 399 individuals filed applications for compromise pursuant to the directions of this Court. 68. The material placed on record discloses that 399 individuals filed applications for compromise pursuant to the directions of this Court. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments reported that the market value of the land as on 1.10.2003 is Rs.1320/- as against the prevailing market value enquired from RDO Chevella Division which ranges from Rs.1500/- to Rs.7,000/- per square yard. Thereafter, the Government constituted a committee in G.O.Ms.No.1616 Revenue dated 8.10.2004, which consisted of Collector, RR District or his representative, a representative from Planning Wing of HUDA, a representative from the Department of Survey and Settlement and an Additional Commissioner of Endowments Department to arrive at a tentative rate and to facilitate the work under section 89 of the Endowments Act and to advise the Commissioner as to the valuation of the lands. By proceedings dated 23.5.2005, Commissioner of Endowments fixed the rate at Rs.1980/- per sq. yd. and to pay the same in instalments. It appears that the compromises could not be finalized because of orders passed in W.P.No.11812 of 2005, a PIL filed against the orders of the Government to sell away lands of various temples in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the said writ petition, initially, directions were issued that no sale of endowment lands shall be entertained and no compromise under section 89 of the Endowment Act shall be effected until further orders, which was modified subsequently on 2.11.2005 to the effect that there shall be no restriction imposed by the High Court for effecting sale by way of public auction. Though the present cases stand on a different footing, the compromises could not be processed. Subsequently Government in Memo.No.101240/Endts.II/1993 dated 28.2.2006 taken a decision to apply and utilize the exemption under section 20(1)(a) of ULC Act, 1976 in respect of GGT lands to operate the provisions of the Endowment Act and instructions were issued to the Special Officer and Competent Authority to withdraw the statement under Section 8(1) and 8(3) of the ULC Act, 1976. But, it appears that the Competent Authority, ULC proceeded with the matter. Subsequently a meeting was conducted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 21.9.2006 and certain decisions were taken to treat the land as urban land ceiling land, all the applications filed under ULC for regularization to be rejected and a special regularization scheme to be formulated to cover the constructions by way of residential houses, sheds, shops etc. Subsequently a meeting was conducted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 21.9.2006 and certain decisions were taken to treat the land as urban land ceiling land, all the applications filed under ULC for regularization to be rejected and a special regularization scheme to be formulated to cover the constructions by way of residential houses, sheds, shops etc. Thereafter nothing has happened. 69. However, ultimately, after repealing of ULC Act, 1976 which came into effect in the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 27.3.2008, Government issued G.O.Ms.747 formulating a general scheme in place of the existing scheme applicable for the entire State for allotment of excess land which was vested in the Government under the provisions of ULC Act, 1976. 70. We may refer to the background in which the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.747 reissuing the scheme of regularization for allotment of excess land to the third parties in occupation/land owners/declarants. The said order was issued by the Government keeping in view the representations received from the public representatives, public associations, housing societies etc. requesting for extension of the benefit of the orders issued from time to time for allotment of land taken over by the Government under the provisions of the ULC Act. Government keeping in view the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Central Act 15 of 1999) providing that the repeal of the principal Act shall not affect the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the Government or any authorized person or the competent authority, and also in view of several representations received from the public who have not utilized the benefit of the orders issued earlier, decided to reissue the scheme of regularization for allotment of excess lands to the third parties in occupation/land owners and accordingly issued guidelines for allotment of excess lands which were vested with the Government and possession of which has been taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Principal Act, 1976 to the land owners/declarants/third parties in occupation subject to certain conditions. Some of the important conditions are that the allotment shall be considered where the excess land had already vested with the Government under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act, 1976 and possession of which has been taken over by the Government and allotment shall be subject to payment of amount to Government at the rates indicated separately for each agglomeration in Schedule-I appended to the order and other conditions. It was further stated that on payment of the amounts prescribed for the excess (ie. Surplus) land occupied and after such verification and inspection as may be considered necessary, proposals for allotment of the excess land in the name of the occupier thereof shall be sent to Government. The allotment made by Government shall be conclusive proof of title of the occupant over such excess land allotted. Further the third party occupants/declarants or their regal representatives who are in occupation of the excess lands shall apply for allotment in the form shown in Schedule II to the Government Order to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling concerned in whose jurisdiction the excess land is situated on or before 30.8.2008. However, the time stipulated was extended from time to time, latest being 31.12.2011. 71. In view of our conclusion that the land continues to vest in the Trust, G.O.Ms.No.747 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 18.6.2008 wherein a general scheme was formulated for allotment of excess land which vested in the Government and possession of which has been taken over by the Government under the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 to the land owners/declarants/third parties in occupation is of no consequence. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that the land which the Trust was holding in excess of the ceiling limit determined under the ULC Act had not vested in the State, the said G.O. has no application to the case of the party respondents for regularization of their illegal occupation. The G.O. will have application only in respect of land which has been taken over by the Government under the provisions of the ULC Act and which was in occupation of third parties. Claim of protected tenants: 72. The G.O. will have application only in respect of land which has been taken over by the Government under the provisions of the ULC Act and which was in occupation of third parties. Claim of protected tenants: 72. As regards the case of the protected tenants it may be noted that a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 31.12.2007 in W.P.Nos.23076 of 2003 and batch upheld the validity of A.P. Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 by which Clause (g) was inserted to Section 102 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. By reason of the said amendment, any agricultural land belonging to or gifted or endowed for the purpose of any charitable Hindu Religious institution or endowment as defined by Act 30 of 1987 are exempted from tenancy. Consequently, by order of the Joint Collector dated 7.10.2003 passed under section 90 of Act 30 of 1987 they were held to be not entitled to protection of their tenancy or claim ownership certificates. The protected tenants carried the matter before the Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order of status quo. Further, the respondent-authorities in their counter affidavit have undertaken not to regularize the lands claimed by the petitioners pending disposal of the SLPs before the Supreme Court. In the counter it was further stated that in view of the sub-division of S.No.11 of Khanamet village the protected tenants have to identify Ac.8.10 gts of land claimed by them. In view of the undertaking given by the respondent-authorities, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 73. In the view we have taken, we are not inclined to go into the merits or otherwise of the contention urged by the party respondents that the petitioner in W.P.No.9714 of 2009 has no locus to file the writ petition by way of PIL or the contention that the Writ Petitions 9714 and 16658 of 2009 are barred by laches and delay. CONCLUSIONS: We hold that the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 have no application to GGT and it is the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987 which have application. CONCLUSIONS: We hold that the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 have no application to GGT and it is the provisions of the Endowments Act, 1987 which have application. The authority under ULC has no power or jurisdiction to recommence the proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act after sale transactions were declared invalid since the exemption under Section 19(1)(iv) of the ULC Act continues to operate in favour of the Trust and the order of S.O. & C.A dated 4.8.2005 and the order of the Commissioner, Appeals, ULC dated 24.1.2007 are without jurisdiction. The exemption under the ULC Act subsists and the Trust is entitled to enjoy the land. G.O.Ms.NO.747 for regularization of land in occupation of third parties has no application to the case of party respondents. As regards the case of the protected tenants, since the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, no relief can be granted except in respect of cases where there is no dispute. Setting apart of certain amount realized under the scheme of regularization under G.O.Ms.No.747 for the benefit of GGT so far as the lands of GGT. 74. At this stage, we may refer to the statement made by the learned Advocate General before the Division Bench on 4.11.2011 that the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad has already taken up the issue on 2.11.2011 with the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to appropriate at least 20% of the amount received under the regularization scheme so as to enable the activities of the Trust to be advanced further and the State Government is seriously considering the proposal submitted by the Special Officer and the Government will be taking an appropriate decision in the matter very shortly. We appreciate the initiative taken by the respondent-authorities for setting apart certain per centage of amount to the benefit of GGT to carry out the activities of the Trust for which it was established but in view of the conclusions arrived at by us and the directions we are inclined to issue herein below, the statement of the learned Advocate General is of no consequence. 75. The matter has not concluded as stated above. Admittedly, the Housing Societies/Housing Associations were allowed to develop the land by obtaining layouts from the Gram Panchayat and make constructions in the land. 75. The matter has not concluded as stated above. Admittedly, the Housing Societies/Housing Associations were allowed to develop the land by obtaining layouts from the Gram Panchayat and make constructions in the land. The material placed on record discloses that several constructions have come in the disputed land and developed into colonies. We may not lose sight of the ground realities emerged due to various commissions and omissions on the part of the respondent-authorities subsequent to the directions given by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch. The respondent-authorities as well as the Trust are equally responsible for the present situation because they failed to take proper steps at the appropriate time. Both have failed to take proper care for protection of the valuable properties of the Trust. On the guise that the former President of the Trust has committed misdeeds and irregularities in maintaining the Trust, the Trust cannot absolve of its responsibility. The Trust ought to have taken appropriate steps particularly when it was brought under the control of the Endowments Department. We are aware that the sale transactions which were declared invalid and void would confer no right on the purchasers or on any one claiming under or through them. But, in view of the peculiar circumstances obtaining in the instant case as narrated supra, the party respondents who have purchased the land and made permanent structures after obtaining necessary approvals from the government departments, cannot be put to hardship as they will be deprived of the land which they were enjoying for the last more than 20 years. Therefore, their case has to be dealt with human approach. Further, the Trust is very much aware that compromise applications were filed by the party respondents pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1679 of 2001 and batch only and the applications could not be processed on account of the interim directions dated 7.6.2005 granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.15055 of 2005 in W.P.No.11812 of 2005. We have earlier noted in para 14 that W.P.No.11812 of 2005 was filed as a Public Interest Litigation challenging the action of the Government and endowment authorities in seeking to alienate and dispose of immovable properties belonging to various temples and endowment institutions in the State. In the said Writ Petition, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following interim order on 7.6.2005. In the said Writ Petition, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following interim order on 7.6.2005. “In the meantime, it is directed that no sales of endowment lands shall be effected without the permission of the Court till further orders. No compromises shall bne effected under Section 898 till further orders from this Court with respondent to endowment lands. Pendedncy of this writ petition shall not be an impediment in any way for the State to proceed against the persons who may be involved in any offence relating to sale/compromise the temple lands under any provision of the Endowments Act. They shall always be at liberty to revise the orders passed earlier, if warranted by law.” By order dated 2.11.2005, the aforesaid order was modified as under: “… Therefore, we modify the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.15055 of 2005 dated 7.6.2005, to the effect that there is no restriction imposed by this Court for affecting sales by way of public auctions. However, it is made clear that the sales arising out of compromise or negotiations shall remain stayed in terms of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.Nlo.15055 of 2005 dated 7.6.2005”. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the Trust contended that, if necessary, the property shall be sold by public auction as it would fetch more. The record discloses that the former President of the Trust sold away the entire land of 627 acres for Rs.25.00 lakhs in the year 1982. The contention of the counsel for the Trust that land shall be put to public auction at this stage would create serious problems and implications as it would prejudicially affect the interest of the party respondents. Therefore, in order to strike a balance and maintain equities between the parties and to put an end to the long pending litigation, a formula has to be evolved so that the rights and interests of all the parties are adequately safeguarded/protected to the extent possible. 76. For the reasons aforementioned, the proceedings of the Special Officer and & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad dated 4.8.2005 determining that the Trust was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit as affirmed by the Commissioner, Appeals by his order dated 24.1.2007 are hereby set aside. 77. 76. For the reasons aforementioned, the proceedings of the Special Officer and & Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad dated 4.8.2005 determining that the Trust was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit as affirmed by the Commissioner, Appeals by his order dated 24.1.2007 are hereby set aside. 77. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to issue the following directions:- (1) In view of the fact that the acts and omissions of the State Government and its various Departments including the acts and omissions of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling and the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, has resulted in the vast extent of the land of the Trust being encroached by third parties, who have raised permanent/temporary structures over the land notwithstanding the declaration of law by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1769 of 2001 and batch, referred to above, and, in view of the findings reached above that the entire extent of the Trust property stands restored to the Trust, we are of the view that the State Government shall compensate the Trust by way of exchange or otherwise by allotting equal extent of land elsewhere around the city, which is otherwise lost by the Trust notwithstanding the declaration by this Court and the G.O’s issued by the Government. (2) The State Government shall, therefore, frame a special scheme for regularization in respect of lands of GGT, which are in occupation of third parties/housing societies/welfare associations. (3) The State Government shall constitute a Committee, which shall consist Officers in the rank of Commissioner from the respective Departments viz. Revenue, Endowments, Survey of Land Records etc. together with the trustees of the Trust and one representative of each housing society/association/individual occupiers of each extent of land, for arriving at an understanding as to the rate to be fixed for the land of GGT, which is in occupation of the third parties, as above and to settle other terms and conditions for regularization/transfer of land to such occupants in accordance with the AP Act 30 of 1987. (4) The amounts received towards regularization fee, as per the decision of the committee aforesaid, shall be kept in a separate account together with the fees for regularization already collected by the Government from individuals in terms of G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008. (4) The amounts received towards regularization fee, as per the decision of the committee aforesaid, shall be kept in a separate account together with the fees for regularization already collected by the Government from individuals in terms of G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008. (5) The regularization fee received from the occupiers, as above, in terms of the decision of the Committee as per the special regularization scheme, referred to above, shall be in addition to the regularization fee already collected by the Government from the individuals under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 and subject to the decision of the Committee, the regularization fee collected by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008, as above, shall be given credit to while collecting the regularization fee under the special regularization scheme, as above. (6) The State Government shall utilize the fees so collected for the purpose of allotting the alternate land to GGT as per Direction No.1 above and the land value of such alternate land shall be met from out of the specially earmarked funds under the special scheme suggested above. Any shortfall of the amount in fulfilling the land value of such alternate land shall be recovered by the Committee in proportion from all the occupiers of the land and that component shall be given due consideration in fixing the rate to be finalized as per the directions above under the special regularization scheme. (7) To the extent of such of the occupants, who are not agreeable for the terms of regularization, as above, shall be vacated by the competent authority under the AP Act 30 of 1987. (8) To overcome any difficulty in implementing the above directions in view of the interim orders of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.15055 of 2005 in W.P.No.11812 of 2005, the Committee directed to be constituted under Direction No.3 or any authority authorized by the Committee on behalf of the Committee, may, seek leave of the Court, by filing appropriate petition in the pending Writ Petition No.11812 of 2005, for modification of the interim directions suitably insofar as the lands of the GGT are concerned for implementing the directions issued herein. 78. In view of the conclusion reached by us and in view of the fact that SLPs are pending before the Supreme Court regarding the validity of A.P. Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act of 2002, at present, no relief can be granted in W.P.No.20407 of 2008. 78. In view of the conclusion reached by us and in view of the fact that SLPs are pending before the Supreme Court regarding the validity of A.P. Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act of 2002, at present, no relief can be granted in W.P.No.20407 of 2008. However, in respect of land for which there is no dispute, the respondent-authorities may consider the cases of individual owners who are in occupation of the land in the light of the above directions. In respect of others, the State Government may pass appropriate orders in accordance with the orders that may be passed by the Supreme Court and the directions issued in this judgment. 79. In the result, W.P.Nos.9714 and 16658 of 2009 are allowed to the extent indicated above and W.P.No.20407 of 2008 is disposed of. All the miscellaneous applications shall stand disposed of. No costs.