MADHAVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) ALL these writ petitions have been taken up together as the point involved is common.

( 2 ) THE main point raised in this batch of writ petitions is that the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (1st respondent) had ho jurisdiction to issue Memo. No. 1439-UC. 1/80-2dt. 10-12-1980 to the inspector General of Registration and stamps directing issuance of instructions to all the registering authorities not to entertain registration of agricultural lands which are specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agricultural based on the certificates issued by the Special officer and Competent Authority, Urban land Ceiling, Hyderabad, since those previous certificates are invalid after the new master plan came into force and to insist upon permission of the Special officer and Competent Authority under section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called urbun Ceiling Act ) or exemption from the Government if the extent of land exceeds 1000 square meters.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the above point, it is sufficient to note the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition No. 6542 of 1980. The respondent is one, M Abdul Hameed. He states that he is an agriculturist in Zillelaguda village, Hayathnagar taluk, Ranga Reddy dist. He is having an extent of Ac. 12-23 guntas in survey Nos. , 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the said village. He settled the marriage of his eldest daughter and to meet the expenses in connection therewith and also to discharge debts incurred for the education of his children, he wanted to sell the said agricultural lands. It is stated that Zillelaguda village is beyond the municipal limits of Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, but within hyderabad Urban Agglomeration as given in item No. 1 of Schedule-I and as defined in clause (n) of section 2 of the Urban ceiling Act. The deponent states that though they are in the agglomeration the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act are not applicable to those lands since they are agricultural lands. That apart the deponent does not possess any land beyond the ceiling limit prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act of 1973. Therefore, in view of the above facts, there is no impediment for sale of the said lands or any part therefor. But it is stated, the Ist respondent has issued the Memo. No. 1439-UC 1/80-2, dated 10-12-1980 instructing the 2nd respondent to direct all the Registrars and sub-Registrars in Hyderadad and Ranga Reddy districts not to register any sale-deed in respect of any agricultural land situated beyond the limits of the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent in his turn, by memo. No, G1/26 276/80, dt. 17-12-1980 instructed all the Registrars and Sub-Registrars in hyderabad, Rangareddy and Medak districts to follow the instructions of the government without any deviation.

( 4 ) IT is further stated in the affidavit that the 1st respondent in the impugned memo referred to G 0 Ms No. 391 dated 23-6-1980 which is purported to have been made under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called the development Act ) where under the 1st respondent has purported to have approved a "draft Master Plan for an area of 534 sq. miles comprising of 307 villages in three districts, namely, Hyderabad, rangareddy and Medak. It is submitted that the said G O is illegal, void and without jurisdiction as it contravenes the very provisions of the development Act. It is further submitted that in any case that has no connection or reference whatsoever to the provisions of the urban Ceiling Act. The petitioners submit that the Ist respondent appears to have been under a misconception that either by forming or expanding a master plan under the provisions of the Development act, it can extend the operation of the urban Ceiling Act to such areas. According to the petitioners, extention of operation of the Urban Ceiling Act can