One Sri C.P. Thamaskoty, S/o. late Dewan Bhadur C. Padmarao Kudaliar, was the owner of property in Bungalow No. 184, comprised in GLR Sy. No. 518, admeasuring Ac. 6.72 cents in the Secunderabad Cantonment. He sold the same in favour of one Sri P. Kuppu Swamy, through sale deed dated 16-02-1962. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') applies to the Secunderabad Cantonment, which is part of Hyderabad Urban agglomeration. The 1st respondent is the Competent Authority, to determine the claims under the Act, as regards the lands in Secunderabad Cantonment Area. Therefore, Kuppu Swamy filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, before the 1st respondent. He has also filed an application under Section 20 of the Act, before the Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for exemption from the provisions of the Act.

2. The 1st respondent informed Kuppu Swamy, through letter dated 14-12-1977 that, since construction over the land in Bungalow No. 184 is prohibited by the relevant provisions of law, it cannot be treated as vacant land, within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act. Therefore, the declaration was not processed. Through his letter dated 19-06-1978, the 1st respondent, however, informed Kuppu Swamy that the restrictions on construction of buildings on the properties similar to bungalow No. 184 have been removed through the orders of GOC-in-C, Southern Command, and in that view of the matter, the necessity has arisen for filing of a declaration. Accordingly, a fresh declaration was filed by Kuppu Swamy, on 04-09-1978. The declarant stated that there is no vacant land. Thereafter, he sold the property in favour of the petitioners herein through sale deed dated 30-04-1981.

3. The petitioners state that, when they were taking steps to prevent encroachment over the property and were causing the repairs to the fencing, the officials of the Cantonment have objected by taking the stand, that the land was declared as excess under the Act, and that the possession thereof was taken. The petitioners claim that, on verification, they came to know that their vendor, Kuppu Swamy, died on 18-10-1981, and after his death, an order under Section 9 of the Act was passed, on 24-021982, without there being any order under Section 8(4) of the Act. They also submit that the notifications, under different subsections of Section 10, were published in the year 1985, against a dead person.

4. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 24-02-1982, passed under Section 9 of the Act, and the subsequent proceedings, including the one, published under Section 10(1) of the Act, in the gazette dated 20-06-1985.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Parliament repealed the Act. The State Legislature has also passed a resolution, adopting the repealing Act. In view of this development, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No. 26974 of 2007 seeking permission to amend the prayer, to the effect that, in view of the Repeal Act 1999, the alleged vesting of the property, under Section 10(3) of the Act, would not take away the rights of the petitioners. The amendment was ordered by this Court through order dated 30-07-2008.

6. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit. He contends that the Union Government is the owner of the property and C.P. Thamaskoty, had only rights of enjoyment. It is stated that the transfer of the property in favour of Kuppu Swamy was effected without permission of the Union Government, and as such, it is ineffective in law. The factum of Kuppu Swamy submitting a declaration, initially in the year 1976, and thereafter in tile year 1978. is admitted. The averment, that Kuppu Swamy, died on 18-10-1981, is not denied, and in fact, a copy of the death certificate is enclosed to the counter-affidavit. According to the respondents, Kuppu Swamy did not derive any right, vis-a-vis the land, and that the transfer in favour of the petitioners is hit by the provisions of the Act.