( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 7 and Sri R. Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 8.

( 2 ) IN this Writ Petition filed by petitioners 1 and 2, of which the first petitioner claiming to be pattadar of the lands in question and the second petitioner claiming to be an agreement holder from the first petitioner, the petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 18-4-1998 passed by the fifth respondent, the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners, as bad, illegal and void.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the pattadar and was the possessor of the lands in survey Nos. 352, 355, 356, 357 and 358 which totally admeasure to Ac. 41. 24 guntas situated in kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, ranga Reddy District. The first petitioner alleges that he had entered into an agreement with the second petitioner and the entire sale consideration was already paid. However, it was pointed out that the eighth respondent, which is a Corporation, had in fact, taken possession of the said lands on 4-3-1975 and constructed industrial sheds required for the Corporation, though no acquisition proceedings as contemplated under Law, were initiated. Thereafter, at the instance of eighth respondent, proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly, a notification under Section 4 (1) thereof, was issued in the Gazette dated 28-1 -1983. This was followed by notice issued under sections 9 (1) and 10 (3) of the Land acquisition Act from the Second respondent. It is stated that both the petitioners herein submitted their claims before the Land Acquisition Officer. Under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, the first petitioner filed required declaration before the competent authority showing all his lands excluding the aforesaid extent of Ac. 41. 24 guntas. However, the government had issued notification for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings as per the Gazette No. 124, dated 12-3-1986 stating that the land in question belongs to the Government. The said withdrawal proceedings were challenged successfully by the second petitioner in Writ Petition no. 4367 of 1986 in this Court, which was allowed on 26-3-1986, and the same was confirmed by Division Bench of this Court as per the Order in Writ Appeal No. 791 of 1987, dismissing the appeal on 14-7-1987. As against the said order, the Government carried the matter in further appeal to the supreme Court in S. L. P. No. 15814 of 1987, which was disposed of on 18-4-1990 by taking note of the subsequent proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of inams Act (Act 8 of 1955) with a direction to the primary authority viz. , the Revenue divisional Officer/lnams Tribunal, Chevella division, Hyderabad to dispose of the proceedings after conducting enquiry. Thereafter, the said Tribunal, as per the order dated 25-1-1996, allowed the claim of the Mandal Revenue Officer holding that the land in question is a Government land, rejecting the claim of the petitioners herein. The petitioners filed a regular appeal before the appellate authority viz. , the fifth respondent herein, which was dismissed as per the impugned proceedings dated 18-4-1998. Hence, this Writ Petition.

( 4 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners challenging the correctness of the rejection of their claim, is that the appellate authority did not consider the matter on merits and no valid reasons nor any findings in support thereof, are given in the impugned proceedings, and further that many of the documents showing the possession of the petitioners, which is the basic relevant factor for considering grant of occupancy rights, have not been taken into consideration properly and from proper perspe