ORDER : The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in treating the lands of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.23 and 28 of Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as Government lands and demanding the petitioners through impugned notice bearing No.B/05/2015 dated 03.01.2015 issued by the respondent No.3 to get the land in alleged unauthorized occupation of the petitioners regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.58 and 59 dated 30.12.2014 as illegal and arbitrary and and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to treat the subject lands as Government lands. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners No.1 and 2 jointly purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.23 and 28 of Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed dated 08.05.1998. Petitioner No.3 purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in the same survey numbers under another registered sale deed dated 08.05.1998. The vendor of the petitioners purchased an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas under registered sale deed dated 08.02.1979 bearing document No.1096 of 1979 from one R. Srinivas Reddy. Ever since the petitioners had been in peaceful possession of the lands totally admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice dated 03.01.2015 stating that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the Government lands and that they are given facility of utilizing the opportunity under G.O.Ms.No.58 and 59 dated 30.12.2014 for regularization of unauthorized occupants. It is contended that the petitioners are in physical possession of the subject lands, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds in the year 1998 and they constructed sheds in the year 1999 for their business purpose. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the year 1979 Mansoorabad Village was in outskirts of the city and was not included in the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. The total land of Ac.1.00 guntas belonging to the petitioners was utilized as single block covered by common compound wall. The petitioners had been doing tissue culture business in the sheds constructed in the subject property and had been in physical possession of the lands since 1998. It is stated that the petitioners were informed that the lands in their occupation was declared surplus in File No.J2/176/2007 relating to one R. Srinivas Reddy and others. The petitioners had been doing tissue culture business in the sheds constructed in the subject property and had been in physical possession of the lands since 1998. It is stated that the petitioners were informed that the lands in their occupation was declared surplus in File No.J2/176/2007 relating to one R. Srinivas Reddy and others. The respondent No.2 has taken up the case suo motu in the month of June 2007 on behalf of R. Srinivas Reddy and others to declare them surplus holder knowing fully well that by such time, the said persons were not in possession of the subject lands and they have already sold the land in the year 1979. Notice under Section 6(2) of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1979 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) was issued to the declarants in the month of June 2007, Section 8(4) orders were passed on 12.06.2007 and alleged possession was taken under panchanama dated 08.02.2008. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the panchanama dated 08.02.2008 it is stated that symbolic possession was taken by the respondent No.3. In the absence of taking actual possession, the respondents cannot claim to have taken possession of the subject land under the provisions of the ULC Act. It is submitted that the petitioners had been paying property tax regularly; the petitioners had been paying electricity bills in respect of the officially sanctioned service connection and there are sheds in the subject property. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment submitted that R. Srinivas Reddy and R. Dharma Reddy were holding land in Sy.Nos.23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 44 and 45 of Mansoorabad Village in excess of ceiling limit but they have not filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act. Therefore, notices under Section 6(2) of the ULC Act were issued to them on 17.03.2007 to file declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. As the land holders failed to file declaration, suo motu proceedings were taken up under Section 6(2) of the ULC Act and provisional orders under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act were passed and notices under Section 8(3) of the ULC Act were issued on 30.04.2007 provisionally declaring the land owners as surplus holders as under: Sl. No. Nature of the land holder Details of land Total extent Sq. Mts Extent allowed U/s 4(1)(b) Area exempted under G.O.Ms.No.733 Extent determined as excess Sq. No. Nature of the land holder Details of land Total extent Sq. Mts Extent allowed U/s 4(1)(b) Area exempted under G.O.Ms.No.733 Extent determined as excess Sq. Mts. 1 Sri R. Srinivas Reddy Sy.Nos.23, 24, 28, 45 of Mansoorab Advocates Appeared : 1,59,850.95 1000 20234.30 1,38,616.65 2 Sri R. Dharma Reddy Sy.Nos.23, 24, 28, 29, 30 & 44 of Mansoorabad 1,56,916.98 1000 20234.30 1,38,616.65 Total: 3,16,767.93 2000 40468.60 2,74,299.33 7. It is submitted that as the delcarants did not file objection to Section 8(1) provisional order, final order under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act was passed and statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act was issued on 12.06.2007. Thereafter, by complying with the provisions of the ULC Act, the possession of the surplus land was taken over on 08.02.2008. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment further submitted that the petitioners do not have locus standi to institute this writ petition. The transfer or alienation, allegedly, made in favour of the petitioners is void under Section 5(3) read with Section 24 of the ULC Act. The petitioners claimed to have purchased the lands in Sy.Nos.23 and 28 in the year 1998 contrary to the provisions of the ULC Act. The subject lands have been taken over on 08.02.2008 and handed over to the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Saroornagar Mandal, for custody. In pursuit of the Government policy to minimize litigations and to save interest of third party occupants of several surplus lands, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.58 and 59 dated 30.12.2014 to get such occupants regularized. The respondent No.3 brought to the notice of the petitioners to avail the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.58 and 59 dated 30.12.2014, but they did not avail the same. The writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners have acquired interest in surplus land much later to the appointed day under the ULC Act (17.02.1976). 9. Heard Ms. A. Satyasri, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment and perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that Mansoorabad village was not included in the Master Plan of Hyderabad as on 17.02.1976, which is the appointed day under the ULC Act and it was included in the extended Master Plan vide G.O.Ms.No.391 Municipal Administration dated 30.06.1980, which came into force with effect from 29.09.1980. 10. It is not in dispute that Mansoorabad village was not included in the Master Plan of Hyderabad as on 17.02.1976, which is the appointed day under the ULC Act and it was included in the extended Master Plan vide G.O.Ms.No.391 Municipal Administration dated 30.06.1980, which came into force with effect from 29.09.1980. The petitioners purchased the subject property totally admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.23 and 28 under registered sale deeds bearing documents No.3939 and 3938 of 1998 dated 08.05.1998. The vendors of the petitioners purchased the property from original owners, R. Srinivas Reddy and others, under registered sale deed bearing document No.1096 of 1979 dated 08.02.1979. The appointed day/relevant day for the purpose of determination of holding of land owners in respect of land covered by the extended Master Plan is 29.09.1980 when G.O.Ms.No.391 Municipal Administration dated 30.06.1980 came into force. A Division Bench of this Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. B. KOMARAIAH : 2002 (2) ALD 253 , held as under: “35. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived is that as and when any land which was not vacant at the time of commencement of the Act becomes vacant on a subsequent date, the holdings of the persons have to be decided with reference to the subsequent date on which the land becomes vacant. Any adjudication in respect of such lands with reference to the date of commencement of the Act cannot be sustained. Admittedly, in the present case, the land in question came to be treated as vacant land with effect from 29-9-1980 on which date the new master plan was published. It is not in dispute that the holdings of the respondents were decided with reference to 17-2-1976 i.e., the date of commencement of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 8(4) of the Act dated 7-4-1990 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority on 22-1-1991 are set aside.” 11. In the instant case, there is no dispute as per the recitals of the sale deeds of the petitioners that the vendors of the petitioners R. Srinivas Reddy (against whom suo motu proceedings under Section 6(2) of the ULC Act were initiated) and R. Rama Reddy (father of R. Srinivas Reddy) already alienated the lands prior to 29.09.1980. In the instant case, there is no dispute as per the recitals of the sale deeds of the petitioners that the vendors of the petitioners R. Srinivas Reddy (against whom suo motu proceedings under Section 6(2) of the ULC Act were initiated) and R. Rama Reddy (father of R. Srinivas Reddy) already alienated the lands prior to 29.09.1980. The sale deed dated 08.02.1979 also discloses that R. Rama Reddy executed the document as Kartha of joint family along with his second son, R. Srinivas Reddy. It is not known as to what is the relationship between R. Srinivas Reddy and P. Dharma Reddy, who is another alleged surplus holder, along with R. Srinivas Reddy. However, it is not relevant as the title was passed on to the vendors of the petitioners under sale deed dated 08.02.1979 and subsequently, to the petitioners under sale deeds of 1998 and the petitioners are admittedly in physical possession of the subject land. Thus, the action of the respondents in including the lands sold by R. Srinivas Reddy and his father under registered sale deed bearing document No.1096 of 1979 dated 08.02.1979 (which were later purchased by the petitioners) by treating the appointed day as 17.02.1976 was illegal and contrary to the judgment of this Court in B. KOMARAIAH’s case (supra). 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on several other judgments including the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. HARIRAM : (2013) 4 SCC 280 , to contend that the petitioners were, admittedly, in physical possession of the property and without issuing Section 10(5) notice to the petitioners, the claim of the respondents that possession of the surplus land was taken is untenable and baseless. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were in physical possession of the subject lands and were entitled for notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act as held by the Supreme Court in HARIRAM’s case (2 supra). However, as it is held that the lands of the petitioners should not have been computed to the holding of the delcarants as observed in para 11, the issue of symbolic possession, issuance of mandatory notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act and applicability of the judgment of this Court in HARIRAM’s case (supra) becomes insignificant. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice bearing No.B/05/2015 dated 03.01.2015 is quashed. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of their lands in Sy.Nos.23 and 28 of Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents are further directed not to treat the subject lands of the petitioners as Government lands or surplus lands and delete such entries in all the official record with reference to subject lands. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order to costs.