ORDER : 1. Heard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Assignment. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas in Survey No. 128/1 of Yousufguda Village, Khairathabad Mandal, Hyderabad District and the petitioners’ title to the said land was declared as against the original declarants/surplus land holders U. Narmada Devi and Others in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which became final since the suit claim was admitted by the original declarants/defendants in that suit. Subsequently, the subject property was purchased by the petitioners from the original owners of the declarants in the year 1973 and subsequently, O.S. No. 74 of 1992 was filed by the 1st petitioner herein on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad that the 1st petitioner be declared as owner and exclusive possessor of the property bearing No. 128/1 admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District as per plaint plan and for permanent injunction. Further case of the petitioners is that since the land is surplus under the provisions of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (i) as per the declaration submitted by the original owners of declarants in the above suit, the petitioners have availed the benefit of regularization contained in G.O.Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002. Initially, the petitioners’ applications were rejected by the 2nd respondent and hence, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 16658 of 2005 and this Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition holding that the petitioners’ applications under G.O.Ms. No. 455, cannot be rejected by the 2nd respondent and that the 1st respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners’ applications. The 1st respondent, however, vide impugned Memo No. 31342/UC.IV/2004-5, dated 10.04.2007 rejected the petitioners’ applications and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. No. 455, cannot be rejected by the 2nd respondent and that the 1st respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners’ applications. The 1st respondent, however, vide impugned Memo No. 31342/UC.IV/2004-5, dated 10.04.2007 rejected the petitioners’ applications and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended as follows: (1) That the 1st petitioner filed O.S. No. 74 of 1992 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 therein and their agents, workmen, representatives not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing Survey No. 128/1 admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District. The lower Court was pleased to grant injunction in favour of the 1st petitioner herein/plaintiff. Basing on the said injunction order dated 20.03.1992 in O.S. No. 74 of 1992, the 1st petitioner-Shabber Ahmed Khan is in judicial possession of the said property. (2) That the defendants in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 had filed common written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff therein i.e. the 1st petitioner herein stating that the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 executed a regular agreement of sale in favour of the 1st petitioner/plaintiff in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 in respect of the suit land in the year 1973 and that ever since the 1st petitioner/plaintiff is in continuous, uninterrupted possession of the same and the defendants in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 did not deny the title of the 1st petitioner/plaintiff and the judgment dated 20.03.1992 in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 has become final. (3) That vide, judgment and decree, dated 20.03.1992, the 1st petitioner has been declared as owner and exclusive possessor of the property bearing Survey No. 128/1admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District and defendants 1 to 4 therein had been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff’s subject property. (3) That vide, judgment and decree, dated 20.03.1992, the 1st petitioner has been declared as owner and exclusive possessor of the property bearing Survey No. 128/1admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District and defendants 1 to 4 therein had been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff’s subject property. (4) That on an earlier occasion, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 16658 of 2005 and this Court was pleased to allow W.P. No. 16658 of 2005 setting aside the Memo dated 12.07.2005 passed by the 1st respondent and further leaving it open to the petitioners to make or resubmit their applications to the respondents for consideration and to pass appropriate orders in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 455, Revenue (U.C.I.) Department, dated 29.07.2002. (5) As per clause ‘e’ sub-clause ‘ii’ of G.O.Ms. No. 455, the applications of the petitioners should be considered. As per Clause (e) of the said G.O. the primary documents and supporting documents to be examined are electricity connection, construction permission, payment of property tax, water supply connection, household supply card and telephone connection. But, however, the 1st respondent mechanically without considering the true spirit of G.O.Ms. No. 455 and without giving credence to the judicial order, dated 20.03.2002, passed in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 obtained in favour of the 1st petitioner herein, passed the impugned memo, dated 10.04.2007, rejecting the petitioners’ applications for regularization of surplus land. (6) The 1st respondent curiously ignored the procedure contemplated under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and passed the impugned order in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment contended as follows: (1) As per Clause ‘h’ of G.O.Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, the petitioners’ applications for regularization of surplus land to an extent of Ac. 1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District could not be considered since the petitioners did not submit any registered document of purchase and as per clause ‘h’ of G.O.Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, allotment of vacant surplus land not covered by any registered document of purchase shall not be considered. 1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District could not be considered since the petitioners did not submit any registered document of purchase and as per clause ‘h’ of G.O.Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, allotment of vacant surplus land not covered by any registered document of purchase shall not be considered. (2) Further the petitioners are not in possession of the subject land, therefore, they are not entitled for regularization of surplus land as per their applications and pleaded that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Taking into consideration, the above referred submissions and after perusing the material on record, this Court opines as follows: (a) The impugned memo, dated 10.04.2007, admittedly has been passed mechanically without following the due procedure laid down under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘ULC’ Act. Section 10(5) of the ULC Act reads as under: “Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (b) The judgment, dated 20.03.1992, in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 passed by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in favour of the 1st petitioner has admittedly not been taken into consideration at all, which clearly evidence’s the possession of the petitioners in respect of the subject property since 07.08.1973, and the said fact having even been admitted in a common written statement filed by the defendants therein and the fact that the 1st defendant executed a regular agreement of sale in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of the suit land in the year 1973 was not taken note at all by the 1st respondent nor considered when the documents evidencing possession even as per G.O.Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002,were electricity connection, construction permission, payment of property tax, water supply connection, household supply card, telephone connection and the judgment of the Court below of which the 1st petitioner relied upon was neither even looked into nor given credence, nor the petitioner was called upon through a notice to submit the required documents. (c) Through a memo filed by the petitioners on 26.04.2022, few material documents are brought on record. Relevant paras in the order dated 17.09.2021 passed in W.P. No. 22284 of 2021 filed by the 1st petitioner herein are extracted hereunder: “In view of the above submission, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 1 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner No. 1, dated 22.07.2021 and pass necessary orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that respondent No. 1, before passing any orders, shall put the petitioners as well as any other interested persons on notice and give them an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order passed by the respondent No. 1 shall be communicated to the parties.” 6. In the letter of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and Spl. Chief Secretary to Government, Telangana State, Hyderabad addressed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue (ULC) Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad in L.A. Reference No. ULC.1/128/50 at Paras 15 and 16, it is observed as follows: “15. It is further informed that the applications of Sri Shabbir Ahmed Khan and 9 others were placed before the D.L.S.C. on 22.12.2015 and State Level Committee on 22.02.2016 and both the Committees have deferred the applications on the ground that the request can be considered after disposal of the Case pending before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 18383 of 2007. 17. It is also informed that according to the State Level Committee recommendations, the applications of Sri Shabbir Ahmed Khan were submitted to the Government vide this office Lr. No. ULC I/37/16, dated 10.05.2016.” 7. 17. It is also informed that according to the State Level Committee recommendations, the applications of Sri Shabbir Ahmed Khan were submitted to the Government vide this office Lr. No. ULC I/37/16, dated 10.05.2016.” 7. Under these circumstances, and also having arrived at a conclusion as per the discussion referred to above that the impugned Memo dated 10.04.2007 was passed mechanically, without application of mind and in contravention of Section 10(5) of ULC Act, the impugned memo dated 10.04.2007 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the applications of the petitioners in proper perspective duly considering Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, the very objective and true spirit of G.O.Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002, and also the orders of this Court, dated 29.07.2005, passed in W.P. No. 16658 of 2005 and also the orders of this Court dated 17.09.2021 passed in W.P. No. 22284 of 2021. Needless to say that the 1st respondent shall comply with the principles of natural justice and shall put the petitioners as well as any other interested persons on notice and give them an opportunity of hearing before passing any orders and the copy of the order passed by the 1st respondent shall be communicated to the petitioners. The entire exercise of considering petitioners’ applications for regularization of the surplus land to an extent of Ac. 1.38 guntas in Survey No. 128/1, situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, shall be completed, preferably within a period of (8) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and necessary orders passed thereon, strictly, in accordance with law. This Court on 03.09.2007 directed status quo to be maintained by the parties with regard to the possession and the WVMP No. 4027 of 2009 was dismissed on 06.12.2010, making the said orders absolute. The same shall continue till appropriate orders are passed by the first respondent on petitioners’ applications seeking regularization of petitioners’ subject land. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.