( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions, the question of law and facts are identical and therefore, I am disposing of them by a common order.

( 2 ) IN all the writ petitions filed the petitioners prayed to call for the records in c. C. No. B4 2728/82 on the file of the first respondent and to issue a Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned orders dated 12-4-1990 of the second respondent and the consequential orders of the first respondent dated 19-2-1991 issued under section 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central act 33 of 1976) (for short the Act ) by the first respondent; and notice dated 28-2-1992 issued under Section 10 (5) of the Act, as null and void in so far as the petitioners lands are concerned.

( 3 ) THE facts, in nutshell in W. P. No. 14986 of 1992, are that the petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac. 0-13 cents (625 square yards) out of Ac. 1-67 cents in R. S. No. 143/2 of Patamata village, which was purchased by his late father under a registered sale deed dated 16-10-1966 from the fourth respondent-Smt. Garikapati thulsamma and her daughter-Annapurnamma; and ever since his father was in posses