( 1 ) ). THE petitioner herein seeks invalidation of the proceedings of the State Government in Memo No. 103636/uc 1{1)/90-99, dated 11-8-1992 and a consequential declaration that the provisions of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976) [for short the Act ] are not applicable to the land of the petitioner situate in R. S. No. 507/2 of Gollapudi village, Krishna District in view of the provisions of the G. O. Ms. No. 733 Revenue (UC. II) Department, Dt. 31-10-1988 and that the petitioner is entitled to exemption u/sec. 20 (1) (a) of the Act chronology of facts: (A) One Ch. G. Krishna Murthy, (the declarant) who was holding considerable extent of vacant land filed a statement u/sec. 6 (1) of the Act declaring before the competent Authority, a holding of 4,451 Sq. Mt. , of vacant land. The declaration was numbered as C. C. No. 2565/76. On 23-6-80 a Draft Statement u/sec. 8 (4) of the act declaring an excess of 2951 Sq. Mt. , was issued. Prior thereto the declarant on 27-11-1979 entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner and others in respect of ac. 0. 94 cts, of the land in question in r-S. No. 507/2. (B) The petitioner and others in whose favour the agreement of sale dt. 27-11-79 was made, filed O. S. 319/81 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, vijayawada, seeking specific performance of the said agreement. The petitioner and other agreement holders also filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act assailing the order dt. 23-6-80 passed u/sec. 8 (4) of the Act. The appeal was allowed by the order dt. 25-1-1982 directing the Special Officer and Competent authority not to proceed further under the act until the rights of the appellants are settled in the civil dispute in O. S. 319/81. (C) On 24-4-86 pursuant to a compromise entered into between the parties in O. S. 319/81, a compromise decree was passed and consequently a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners. (D) Thereafter the petitioner filed an application u/sec. 20 (1){a) of the Act seeking exemption in respect of the land purchased by him. By the order of the State government dt. 12-6-86 the petitioner was directed to file a declaration u/sec. 6 of the act before the Competent Authority and to approach the Government after an order is passed by the Competent Authority u/sec. 8 (4) of the Act. In compliance with the order, the petitioner filed a declaration numbered as C. C. No. 2938/86, duly enclosing certified copies of the decree in o. S. 319/81. (E) The Competent Authority passed orders dt. 20-10-86 in C. C. No. 2565/76 (filed by the original owner) u/sec. 10 (5) of the act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W. P. 1934/87 assailing the orders dt. 23-10-86. (Sec. 8 (4) proceedings) (F) By the judgment dt. 19-12-89 Writ petition No. 1934/87 instituted by the petitioner, was dismissed. This Court held as under: (i) that the declaration u/sec. 8 (4) of the Act was made by the competent Authority determining the excess land to be 2951 Sq. Mt, which order had become final; (ii) that thereafter Sec. 10 (3) notification was issued on 1-5-81 and published in the Gazette on 5-3-81 as a consequence of which the excess land vested in the State u/sec. 10 (3) of the Act. (iii) that the compromise decree in o. S. 319/81 relied upon, to assert the title of the petitioner was passed on 24-4-86 and the consequent sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 20-8-86. Thus, long prior to the decree and execution of the sale deed the land already vested in the State. Consequently the petitioner gets no right, interest or title to the land declared excess on 23-6-80; (iv) that the petitioner and others having entered into an agreement of sale dt. 27-11-79 before the declaration of excess is of no consequence in view of the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act, which render the transfer of land in favour of the petitioner null and void; (v) that the impugned notice u/sec. 10 (5) of the Act wa