Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 402 (TS)

B. Ravi Kumar Yadav v. State of Telangana

2022-06-20

B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

body2022
ORDER : As the subject matter of the writ petitions is common and the issues involved therein are also common, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. WP.Nos.8292 and 25859 of 2021 are filed seeking to set aside the proposal of the respondent No.5 (District Collector, Hyderabad) in Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/2020 dated 25.02.2021 forwarded to the respondent No.1 for according permission to alienate the premises of the petitioners i.e. H.Nos.6-1-1072, 6-1-1073, 6-1-1072/1 and 6-1-1073/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, to an extent of 1287 sq. meters in T.S.No.7, Block-L, Ward No.83 of Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad, in favour of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Committee (TSERC) and trying to take forcible possession of land of the petitioners forming part of “Amaravathi Theatre” as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India claiming it to be surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 3. W.P.No.33645 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners in WP.No.8292 of 2021 seeking to set aside the proceedings in Ref.No.579/Prl.SCM/2021 dated 30.11.2021 of the respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.7 to hand over advance possession to the respondent No.5 the additional land to an extent of 500 to 600 sq. meters in T.S.No.7 Block-L, Ward 83 of Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad and proposal for formal allotment by the Government along with proceedings of the respondent No.7 in Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/20202 dated 19.03.2021 and Lr.No.REV/E5 /0012/2020 dated 31.05.2021 written to the respondent No.4 allotting land in favour of the respondent No.12 (TSERC) as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 4. The facts in W.P.No.8292 of 2021, which is a lead case, are set out in brief as under: (a) The house bearing Nos.6-1-1072, 6-1-1073, 6-1-1072/1 and 6-1-1073/1 situated at Khairatabad, Hyderabad (schedule property) originally belonged to one Miss Olive Ogilvi and Miss Sybil Ogilvi, which comprised of a big house along with appurtenant land. The total building and the appurtenant land was in more than 1 acre of land. The original owners sold the schedule property to one Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum, W/o. Khaja Mohd. Fasiuddin Khan vide sale deed bearing document No.637 registered in SRO Balda, dated 26th Azar 1337 Falsi (1927). Since then, Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum was in exclusive possession of the schedule property. The house which had more than 200 rooms, was a palatial house and it was popularly known as ‘Maman Bungalow’. Ahmedunisa Begum, W/o. Khaja Mohd. Fasiuddin Khan vide sale deed bearing document No.637 registered in SRO Balda, dated 26th Azar 1337 Falsi (1927). Since then, Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum was in exclusive possession of the schedule property. The house which had more than 200 rooms, was a palatial house and it was popularly known as ‘Maman Bungalow’. It had outhouses, servant quarters, front and back houses which were surrounded by a compound wall to an extent o 2630.30 sq. meters + 2313.34 sq. meters = 4943.64 sq. meters. (b) Mrs. Ahmedunisa Begum gifted her property by way of Hiba-bill-qabz on 01.03.1957 and thereafter, recorded the same in her Memorandum of Gift Deed dated 12.04.1957 stating that 1. Vicarunissa Begum, 2. Iqbalunissa, 3. Zamelunissa, 4. Syed Khaza Maslehuddin, 5. Syed Khaza Muzafaruddin and 6. Syed Khaja Afzaluddin have equal shares in all part and parcel of the house and appurtenant land. In the said deed it was clearly mentioned that some land was leased out to M/s Burma Shell Company and site which was leased out M/s Caltex in which the donees 4 to 6 alone have equal shares. The schedule property was divided into two portions i.e. land into 2670.30 sq. meters and 2313.30 sq. meters to facilitate purchased of the same by two sets of families as such 1st part consisting of 2670.30 sq. meters was purchased by G. Laxmamma, W/o. Gandiah and 9 others through registered sale deed with document No.792 of 1978 dated 20.03.1978 from Smt. Vicarunissa Begum @ Chote Mem Saab and five others for a valid sale considered. The sale deeds were executed in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 29.08.1976 for valid consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- and Rs.2,30,000/- respectively. (d) After purchase of the property, the ‘Maman Bungalow’ was demolished and theatre by name Amaravathi was constructed by taking permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Out of land of one acre, open space was left out in an extent of 2000 sq. yards for Amaravathi Theatre as well as for the vehicles of the petrol bunk. The bungalow was in existence from 1927 itself as is evident from the Sale Deed executed in 1337 Fasli and there was no vacant land except the appurtenant land attached to the Maman Bungalow. The property tax for the schedule property was paid regularly. yards for Amaravathi Theatre as well as for the vehicles of the petrol bunk. The bungalow was in existence from 1927 itself as is evident from the Sale Deed executed in 1337 Fasli and there was no vacant land except the appurtenant land attached to the Maman Bungalow. The property tax for the schedule property was paid regularly. The house was constructed in Sy.No.563 of Khairatabad Village in an extent of 4818 sq. meters, which co-relates to T.S.No.7 Block-L, Ward-83 prior to 1927. The name of Chote Mem Saab is mentioned in the pattedar colum even in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. Chote Mem Saab is no other than Vicarunnisa Begum, who is the daughter-in-law of Ahmedunissa Begum. When the predecessors of the petitioners are not claiming any title from Basheerudin Babu Khan or others, who are the declarants under the ULC proceedings, the petitioners are not bound by the said proceedings. (e) In the year 2011, a copy of summons was affixed to the wall of the theatre, which is purported to have been issued under the A.P. Revenue Summons Act, 1869, by the respondent No.8 proposing to hold an enquiry on 05.12.2011 in respect of the schedule property alleging that the Government interest is involved. The petitioners were directed to submit documents enlisted in the notice. The petitioners produced sale deeds, link documents, building permission, electricity bills, telephone bills etc. On the basis of the report of the respondent No.3 and the report of the respondent No.8 dated 22.12.2011, the respondent No.5 issued a letter addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 vide Letter No.E8/8688/2011 dated 23.11.2011 giving particulars of the document and the ULC proceedings bearing No.E/8308 to 8313/76, E/13931 and 13933/76, E/11303 to 11306/76. It is mentioned by the respondent No.5 that as per TSLR the said land in Sy.No.53 id co-related to T.S.No.7, Block-L, Ward-83 of Khairatabad Village to an extent of 4818 sq. meters, recorded in the name of Vicarunnissa Begum and five others in column 20 and 23, the door Nos.6-1- 1072, 6-1-1073, 6-1-1072/1 and 6-1-1073/1 are recorded as Bangala Patta to the extent of Ac.1.35 guntas in the name of Chote Mem Saab, pattedar. It is clearly mentioned that petitioners are the occupants claiming title from Vicarunnissa Begum and five others by demolishing the bungalow and constructing two petrol bunks. It is clearly mentioned that petitioners are the occupants claiming title from Vicarunnissa Begum and five others by demolishing the bungalow and constructing two petrol bunks. The permission was obtained from GHMC and the house property with No.6-1-1072/1 and 6-1-1073/1 has been assessed in the name of M/s. Krishna Service Station and H.No.6-1-1072 and 6-1-1073 was assessed in the name of Syed Ahmed Khaja and H.No.6-1-1073/A was in the name of Smt. Ahmedunissa Begum. (f) The petitioners have been under the impression that the proceedings under the A.P. Revenue Summons Act have been dropped. However, again in the year 2016, notice was affixed of the wall of the theatre by the respondent No.8 vide Lr.No.C/1120/2016 dated 21.06.2016 addressed to one R. Kommaraiah, who was not alive by then. The notice was issued calling upon the illegal occupants to submit applications for regularizing illegal occupation of surplus land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92; as the land was not surplus land, the petitioners did not choose to file application for regularization. The land was not part of Babu Khan Estates and no notice whatsoever was issued in proceedings in File in C.C.No.8308 to C.C.No.E1/8313/76, E/13931 and 13933/76, E/11303 to 11306/76. The authorities did not take any further action until December 2020. (g) In December 2020, a photographer came to the premises and took photographs of the structures of the appurtenant land. On enquiry by the petitioners, it was revealed that he was sent by the respondent No.8 stating that vacant land is a surplus land and the same is allotted for some Government offices. The petitioners submitted representation dated 04.01.2021 stating that the schedule land is not surplus land and to give them opportunity to explain as to how it is not a surplus land. But there was no response from the respondents. On enquiry, it came to light that the land to an extent of 1237 sq. meters was proposed to be allotted to TSERC. On further enquiry, it came to light that the respondent No.8 has only shown T.S.No.2 4/1 and 4/2 Block-L, Ward-83, Khairatabad Village, as surplus in C.C.No.E1/8308/76 in the letter addressed to the respondent No.5 in Lr.No.C/SPL.2020 dated 16.12.2020. (h) It is stated that the schedule land was not declared as surplus land and it is not in Hussain Sagar but in Khairatabad Village and not part of above referred ceiling cases. (h) It is stated that the schedule land was not declared as surplus land and it is not in Hussain Sagar but in Khairatabad Village and not part of above referred ceiling cases. The respondent No.1 is claiming that the schedule land in T.S.No.7 Block-L, Ward- 83 of Khairatabad Village is a vacant land under ULC proceedings as per the report of the respondent No.8 and the proposed alienation is in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assn-1) Department dated 14.09.2012. The schedule land of the petitioners, which is not subject matter of C.C.No.E1/8308/76, cannot be alienated in the guise of surplus land. The petitioners were not dispossessed by following due process of law either by the respondent No.8 or by the ULC authorities, at any point of time and the petitioners are in possession of the schedule land. The petitioners did not receive any notice in C.C.No.E1/8308/76. The Government has wrongly included the land of the petitioners in the Land Bank No.8300039. The respondent No.5, without verifying the title of the land and by taking into account the report of the respondent No.8, has forwarded proposal to alienate the land. The impugned proposal of alienating the land is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 5. In the counter filed by the respondents No.1 to 5 and respondent No.8, it is stated that the schedule land admeasuring 1287 sq. Meters, which is vacant, falls in T.S.No.7, Block-L, Ward No.83, correlating to old Sy.No.53 situated at Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad, is part and parcel of surplus land determined totally admeasuring 13,956 sq. Meters out of Sy.Nos.52, 53 54, 56, 57 and 60 (old) correlated to T.S.Nos.4/1, 2, 4/2, 6/1, 6/2 and 7 to 12 situated at Khairatabad village in ceiling case Nos.E18308/76 to E18313/76 under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). The following individuals filed statements under Section 6(1) of the Act declaring the schedule land along with other lands held by them within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration as detailed herein: Sl. The following individuals filed statements under Section 6(1) of the Act declaring the schedule land along with other lands held by them within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration as detailed herein: Sl. No. Declarant CC.No. Extent Determined as Surplus in T.S.No.7, Sy.No.52, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 60 (old) Khariatabad Date of Notification U/s.10(1) Date of Declaration U/s.10(3) 1 Smt. Nursath Banu E1/8308/ 76 2326-00 Sq.Mtrs 16.01.1980 23.01.1980 2 Smt.Sajeeda Banu E1/8309/ 76 2326-00 Sq.Mtrs 16.01.1980 23.01.1980 3 Smt.Turab Banu E1/8310/76 2326-00 Sq.Mtrs 16.01.1980 23.01.1980 4 Smt. Sadar Banu E1/8311/ 76 2326-00 Sq.Mtrs 16.01.1980 23.01.1980 5 Smt. Farida Banu E1/8312/ 76 2326-00 Sq.Mtrs 16.01.1980 23.01.1980 6 Smt.Jameela Banu E1/8313/ 76 2326-00 Sq.Mtrs 16.01.1980 23.01.1980 Total Extent 13,956-00 Sq.Mtrs 6. It is stated that after due enquiry conducted under the provisions of the Act and basing on the record filed by the declarants as required under Section 8 of the Act, orders under Section 8(4) and final statement under Section 9 of the Act were issued determining the declarants as excess land holders to an extent of 2,326 Sq. Meters each and a total of 13,956-00 Sq. Meters. Notification under Section 10(1), declaration under Section 10(3), notice under Section 10(5) and proceedings under Section 10(6) were issued in each case and possession of surplus land including the land claimed by the writ petitioners was taken over on 05.01.2008 much before adoption of the Repeal Act, 1999 by then State of Andhra Pradesh. The family members of the declarants were also determined to be excess holders of land in the survey numbers which was subject matter of CC.Nos.E11303/76 to 11306/76. The total extent of surplus land taken over was 22,625.55 Sq. Meters and the same was handed over the Tahsildar, Khairatabad Mandal. Out of total extent of the land, vacant land to an extent of 1287 Sq. Meters in T.S.No.7, Block-L, Ward No.83, was proposed for alienation in favour of TSERC vide letter of the Collector, Hyderabad, Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/2020 dated 25.02.2021 and advance possession was handed over to TSERC for construction of office building vide proceedings of the Collector, Hyderabad No.REV/E5/0012/2020 dated 19.03.2021. The land is in possession of TSERC. 7. It is stated that TSERC further requested the respondent No.8 to alienate adjacent land, approximately, 500 – 1000 Sq. Meters as they required a Court Hall and huge parking space. Accordingly, advance possession of 510 Sq. The land is in possession of TSERC. 7. It is stated that TSERC further requested the respondent No.8 to alienate adjacent land, approximately, 500 – 1000 Sq. Meters as they required a Court Hall and huge parking space. Accordingly, advance possession of 510 Sq. Meters was handed over to TSERC on 01.12.2021 vide proceedings of the District Collector bearing No.REV/E5/0012/2020 dated 01.12.2021. The dispute herein is with regard to vacant land in T.S.No.7, Block-L, Ward No.83 of Khairatabad but not with regard to structures therein and Amaravathi theatre. The transfer of land within Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration after enforcement of the Act is prohibited under Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act, unless valid permission under Section 26 of the Act is obtained from the competent authority. The alleged purchase of the schedule land in the year 1978 by the petitioners is hit by the provisions of the Act. On a perusal of the document of 1337 Fasli, filed by the writ petitioners, it is noticed that as page No.3 it is mentioned that up to the date of execution of the said document, after the death of their father, they did not get the patta transferred in respect of the schedule land. When the land is not in the name of the executants and without having patta or title in their name, they could not have executed a document or nor could pass a better title to the purchasers. The schedule land is Government land. 8. It is stated that the subject property in the writ petition is covered by Item No.8 of the declarations by land holders. Government considered their exemption petition for an extent of 1181.81 Sq. Meters existing in two premises. As per the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.10, GHMC Lr.No.409/TC- 10/C2/GHMC/2011 dated 09.12.2011 the premises bearing H.No.6- 1-1072/1, 6-1-1072 & 1073 and 6-1-1072/1 were assessed with effect from 01.04.2000, 01.10.1980 and 01.04.1995, which shows that the said premises have been allotted after determination of the lands as surplus land under the Act. The Government as a welfare measure issued G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 26.05.2016 for regularization of the surplus land under the occupation of the third parties subject to the terms and condition but the petitioners did not respond. The Government as a welfare measure issued G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 26.05.2016 for regularization of the surplus land under the occupation of the third parties subject to the terms and condition but the petitioners did not respond. The subject land forms part of ceiling surplus land, which was handed over to the Tahsildar, Khairatabad on 12.07.2011 under the cover of panchanama for safe custody and subsequently, handed over to TSERC. 9. The allotment of land to TSERC has been initiated by following the due procedure and A-1 notification dated 18.01.2021 was displayed in the site as also in the local Tahsildar office notice board. The allegation that A-1 notification was pasted on the outer wall in February 2021 and not in January 2021 is incorrect and misconceived. The respondent No.8 informed the respondent No.5 vide letter dated 02.01.2021 that the Tahsildar has submitted report stating that land to an extent of 1287 sq. meters falling in T.S. No.7, Block-L, Ward No.83, correlated to Sy.No.53/P and 54/P of Khairtabad Village was declared as ceiling surplus land vide C.C. No.E/8308/76 and available for construction of TSERC building. 10. Pursuant thereto the respondent No.4 vide letter bearing No.E1/8308 to 8313/CC/76 dated 20.02.2021 submitted information stating that on the declarations filed by the declarants in respect of ceiling case Nos.E1/8308 to 8313/76, after due enquiry and in accordance with the procedure laid down, the ceiling cases have been processed up to 10(6) stage duly publishing the mandatory notification under sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act and a total extent of 22,625.25 sq. meters was declared as surplus out of Sy.Nos.52, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 60(old) correlating to T.S. No.4/1, 2, 4/2, 6/1, 6/2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Block-L, Ward No.83, Khairatabad Village and Mandal in ceiling cases E1/8308/76 to 8313/76, E/113030 to 11306/76 and possession of the land was taken over on 05.01.2008 and the possession was handed over to the local revenue officer on 12.07.2021 under cover of panchanama and the same was in possession of the Tahsildar, Khairatabad Mandal. The said land in Sy.Nos.52, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 60 Khairatabad village was shown at Sl.No.5 in annexure 9 of their declarations and the lands at Hussain Sagar are shown at Sl.No.7 of the same annexure 9 and they are situated in Sy.No.125 (old) and 207(new) of Khairatabad village and they are different properties and the subject land is no way concerned to the Hussain Sagar lands. 11. It is further stated that the allotment proposal are within the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012. The claimants made claim over the subject property almost 45 years after the ULC Act came into force. They did not represent their case during enquiries and field inspection before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyderabad. The ULC Act was repealed with effect from 27.03.2008 and the proceedings attained finality. The claim of the petitioners deserves no consideration. No regularization has been done in their favour. The alleged purchase of subject land by the writ petitioners in the year 1978 is hit by the provisions under Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act as they have not obtained valid permission under Section 27 of the Act. During the process of ceiling cases referred at para No.3(II) above, the site was vacant on ground and hence the stand of the authority is admissible. The possession of the subject land was taken over on 05.01.2008 and the repeal act was adopted in the State with effect from 27.03.2008. The alleged abatement is not applicable in this case since taking over possession of the subject land is saved under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. 12. Heard Smt. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Harender Pershad, learned Special government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel for TSERC. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that each of the declarants in C.C.Nos.E1/8308/76 to 8313/76 have filed affidavits before the SO & CA, ULC during the enquiry stating that the properties in Item Nos.7 to 13 of annexure A of the declaration are not in their possession for a long time and therefore, they cease to have any right, title or interest in the said properties. Out of Item Nos.7 to 13, this Court is concerned with Item Nos.8 and 9. Item No.8 is land admeasuring 2326 sq. meters in Sy.Nos.52, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 60 (old) and item No.9 is land admeasuring 1368.25 sq. Out of Item Nos.7 to 13, this Court is concerned with Item Nos.8 and 9. Item No.8 is land admeasuring 2326 sq. meters in Sy.Nos.52, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 60 (old) and item No.9 is land admeasuring 1368.25 sq. meters in Sy.No.55 (old) of Khairatabad Village. 14. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the land, which is not in possession of the declarants, can be computed to his or her holding. 15. Section 2(l) of the ULC Act reads as under: “2(l) “to hold” with its grammatical variations, in relation to any vacant land, means- (i) to own such land: or (ii) to possess such land as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee or under an irrevocable power of attorney or under a hire-purchase agreement or partly in one of the said capacities and partly in any other of the said capacity or capacities. Explanation.- Where the same vacant land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in another capacity, then, for the purposes of this Act, such land shall be deemed to be held by both such persons.” 16. The ULC Act has been enacted with a laudable object of ensuring equitable distribution of land. The Act provides for ceiling limit beyond which holding of land will be declared surplus and such surplus land is meant to be distributed among landless poor persons. Apart from owner of land, the person who is in possession as tenant or as mortgagee or under irrevocable power of attorney or hire-purchase agreement as evident from Section 2(l) is liable to file declaration for computation of his holding. Explanation under Section 2(l) makes it further clear that land, which is held by two persons in different capacities shall be deemed to be held by such persons and both of them are required to file declaration. But the crucial point here is whether an owner, who is, admittedly, not in possession of the property, is liable to declare such land and even if he/she declares such land, can the same be computed to their holding. 17. But the crucial point here is whether an owner, who is, admittedly, not in possession of the property, is liable to declare such land and even if he/she declares such land, can the same be computed to their holding. 17. The interpretation of expression “to hold” came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in State of Andhra Pradesh v. A. Bharathi, 2002 SCC OnLine AP 184 : (2002) 4 ALD 638 (DB), wherein it was held as under: “ ... The Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. HEH. The Nizam, Hyderabad, 1996 (3) ALD (SC SN) 38, (Supra) has held that the phrase ‘to hold’ connotes two concepts i.e., physical possession or legal title to the vacant land and that both the concepts stand attracted to the concept ‘hold’ under the Land Ceiling Act. Even as on the date of the Act coming into force, the vendor of the writ petitioner has parted with possession of the land under the agreement of sale and subsequently the registered sale deed, executed after issuing the statutory notice under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, confers absolute title on the writ petitioner. ... ... ... Therefore, it has to be held that the original vendor did not hold possession of the land in question as on the date of coming into force of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and that therefore the said land cannot be included in his declaration.” 18. In the above case, the writ petitioner originally entered into an agreement of sale on 01.12.1975 (before ULC Act came into force) with the declarant and he was put into possession of the land. Subsequently, a sale deed was executed in favour of the writ petitioner on 05.12.1976. In these circumstances, the Division bench made the above observations holding that the land could not have been included in declaration of the vendor of the writ petition a he has already parted with possession before the ULC Act came into force. 19. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the declarants have given sworn affidavits stating that they are not in possession of the subject land situated at Khairatabad. 19. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the declarants have given sworn affidavits stating that they are not in possession of the subject land situated at Khairatabad. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that the declarants have requested the ULC authorities to include the subject lands in their computation and takeover the said lands treating them as surplus. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader is without any merit for the following reasons. First of all, when the land is not in possession of the declarants, the question of such lands being computed to their holding would not arise. Secondly, the act of declarants requesting the authorities to takeover these lands by treating them surplus is nothing but absurd. As a matter of fact, the subject lands which were admittedly not in possession should have been deleted from the holding of the declarants while determining their surplus holding. 20. Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioners do not have locus standi to challenge the ULC proceedings as their sale deeds are executed in 1978 and the same is in violation of Section 5(3) of the ULC Act. He submitted that there is no reference in the sale deeds to any proceedings whereunder permission is said to have been granted and petitioners may be called upon to furnish such proceedings. 21. On verifying the contents of the sale deeds of the year 1978, it is evident that the vendors of the petitioners have taken permission under Section 27 of the Act. However, it is relevant to point that this Court is not enquiring into the title of the petitioners or their predecessors. It has to be presumed that the Sub-Registrar had taken all precautions and verified the permission as required under Section 27 of the Act before the subject property was purchased by the petitioners-predecessors. 22. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in HARIRAM v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH : (2013) 4 SCC 280 , the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh in RAJ KUMAR SURANA v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : 2014 (2) ALD 125 and N. LINGA RAO v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : 2017 (6) ALD 270 , the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned proceedings are void ab initio. Notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was not served on the petitioners, who were admittedly in possession of the property. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the printed panchanamas whereunder the respondents claimed to have taken over possession of the subject land. However, as it is observed in the preceding paragraphs that the subject land should not have been computed to the holding of the declarants, all subsequent proceedings including Section 8(4) order, notifications under Section 10(1) and 10(3), notice under Section 10(5) and 10(6) proceedings are hereby held to be vitiated and void. Thus, it is not necessary for this Court to decide the validity of notice under Section 10(5) and proceedings under Section 10(6) of the Act. 23. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned proceedings viz. Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/2020 dated 25.02.2021 forwarded to the respondent No.1 for according permission to alienate the premises belonging to the petitioners viz. H.No.6-1-1072, 6-1-1073, 6-1-1072/1 and 6-1-1073/1, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, to an extent of 1287 sq. meters in T.S.No.7, Block-L, Ward No.83 of Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad, in favour of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Committee (TSERC) and Ref.No.579/Prl.SCM/2021 dated 30.11.2021 of the respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.7 to hand over advance possession to the respondent No.5 the additional land to an extent of 500 to 600 sq. meters in T.S.No.7, Block-L, Ward No.83 of Khairatabad Village, Hyderabad and the proceedings of the respondent No.7 in Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/2020 dated 19.03.2021 and Lr.No.REV/E5/0012/2020 dated 31.05.2021 for allotment of land in favour of TSERC, are set aside. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.