Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the same proceedings, and the petitioners in them are brothers. The respondents 1 and 2 are common in the writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P.No.2412 of 2009; and the petitioner in W.P.No.7715 of 2009 is hereafter addressed as 2nd petitioner.

Singireddi Sathi Reddy owned Ac.43.15 guntas of land in different survey numbers of Nadargul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The village is within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration, as defined under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). Sathi Reddy died before the Act came into force. His property devolved upon his wife, Nagamma, and his two sons, the petitioners herein, in equal shares. The petitioners and their mother filed separate declarations before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, the 2nd respondent, under Section 6 of the Act. An order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed on 29-09-1994. It was held that the declarants are entitled to retain an extent of 1,000 sq. meters each, under Section 4(1)(b), and 20,234.3 sq.meters each, as per G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31-08-1988. They were required to surrender 2642.56 sq. meters each.

The 2nd petitioner alone preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order under Section 8(4) of the Act. The 1st petitioner and their mother did not file any appeal. The petitioners did not receive any communication from the respondents, till the Act was repealed in the State with effect from 27-03-2008. On finding that the officials of the Government were visiting the land in Sy.No.65, they made enquiries. It was revealed that the 2nd respondent issued revised orders under Section 8(4) of the Act, on 31-01-2008, holding that the three declarants are liable to surrender an extent of 55,521 sq.meters, each. A notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 08-02-2008, and declaration under Section 10(3) was issued on 23-02-2008. This was followed by a notice dated 05-03-2008, under Section 10(5) of the Act said to have been served on 07-03-2008, the possession is said to have taken on 25-03-2008, by conducting panchanama, on the ground that the petitioners did not surrender the land within the stipulated time.

The petitioners submit that there are several inconsistencies and irregularities in the entire proceedings and that the respondents 1 and 2 have acted in haste, with the sole object of taking away the lands of the petitioners, knowing fully well that the Act is going to be repealed in the State. They contend that in his anxiety to take possession of the land, the 3rd respondent had committed a blatant violation of Section 10(6) of the Act.

On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavits are filed. It is stated that though an order was passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, on 29-09-1994, the proceedings were re-opened by the Government, in exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act, and thereafter revised orders under Section 8(4) were passed in accordance with law. It is stated that further steps contemplated under Section 10 were initiated, and the possession of the land was taken by the Government. The allegations as to factual inaccuracy or violation of provisions of law are denied.

Heard Sri P. Chandrasekhara Reddy, and Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Assignments.

The petitioners and their mother filed declarations under Section 6 of the Act, in respect of the lands held by them. Common order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed on 29-09-1994. Each of the declarants were required to surrender an extent of 26,425 sq.meters. However, the matter did not progress further, till March, 2007, except that the appeal preferred by the 2nd petitioner was pending. Though the respondents state that various steps under Section 10 of th