( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Special Officer, Urban land Ceilings, Warangal, in issuing the final Statement under Section 9 (1) of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act ) and issuing the notifications under Sections 10 (1), 10 (3) and notice under Section 10 (5) of the Act without passing any order under Sec. 8 (4) of the Act as illegal.

( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner - Smt. Dhana Laxmi, mother of petitioners 2 to 4 has filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act, declaring the urban property in Sy. No. 571 (new) 563 (old) admeasuring Ac. 0-36 situated at Waddepally village, hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. An enquiry was made and found that the petitioners are in possession of the urban land to an extent of 3,369 Sq. Mtrs. and a draft statement under Section 8 (1) of the act has been issued declaring that the declarant is entitled to 2,000 Sq Mtrs. and an extent of 1,369 Sq. Mtrs is excess surplus land. The draft statement was served on 14-11-1977 calling for the objections to be filed within 30 days and it. appears that no objections have been filed, and therefore, a final statement under Section 9 (1) of the act was issued on 17-12-1977. A notification under Section 10 (1) was issued and notified in the Gazette on 28-08-1980 and notification under Section 10 (3) was also issued on 03-09-1981 and subsequently notice under Section 10 (5) was also issued on 28-10-1981. An appeal was also filed under Section 33 before the Commissioner, land Revenue, Urban Land Ceiling, A. P. , hyderabad oh 21-11-1981. Though the commissioner initially granted stay of dispossession, the appeal was dismissed on 21-04-1984.

( 3 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said land is an agricultural land and they have filed certified copies of pahanies for the years 1970-71 to 1975-76 and 1980-81, 1982-83 and they are entitled for the exemption in terms of the G. O. Ms. No. 1797 dated 24-10-1978, but their case has not been considered and without passing any orders under Section 8 (4) and without giving any opportunity to the declarant, final statement is issued under Section 9 (1) of the Act and it is illegal and unsustainable.

( 4 ) A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents admitting that no orders have been passed under Section 8 (4) of the act.

( 5 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the subsequent proceedings without passing an order under Sec. 8 (4) of the Act are sustainable. Section 8 (4) of the act is reproduced as under:"8. Preparation of draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit: (1 ). . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . .- (4) The competent authority shall duly consider any objection received within the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (3) or within such further period as may be specified by the competent authority for any good and sufficient reason, from the person on whom a copy of the draft statement has been served under that sub-section and the competent authority shall, after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it deems fit. "

( 6 ) AS per Section 8 (3) of the Act, draft statement shall be served on the declarant so as to enable him to file objections within 30 days of the service of the statement. If the declarant files any such objection, the competent Authority shall consider the same and shall also give a reasonable opportunity of being heard and then pass the orders as are deemed fit. It is the contention of the Government Pleader that if no objection is filed by the declarant, the question of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard a. s contemplated by the second Part of Section 8 (4) does not arise. I. am unable to agree with this contention for the reason that if any objection is filed or not, there is a statutory duty