The land admeasuring about Acs.25.00 in different Survey Numbers of Bhagyath Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was owned by one Mr.Gonguluri Ramakishtaiah, the grand father of the petitioners herein. He filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). When the declaration was under process, Ramakishtaiah died on 08.01.1991. Obviously not being aware of the death of the declarant, the Special Officer and Competent Authority, 2nd respondent herein passed an order dated 25.02.1991 holding that the declarant possesses the land in excess of ceiling limits. The petitioners state that they succeeded to the estate of Ramakishtaiah.

The Government issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 05.07.2006 proposing to acquire the land admeasuring Ac.4.25 guntas in Survey Nos.326 and 329. Declaration under Section 6 of that Act was also issued. The petitioners participated in the award of enquiry and made claim for payment of compensation. At that stage, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 05.02.2008 under Section 10(6) of the Act directing that the land to an extent of 90,647.35 square meters situated in various survey numbers including the one in Survey Nos.326 and 329 admeasuring Ac.4.25 guntas vested in the Government, on the ground that no representation was received in reply to the notice dated 03.01.2008 issued under Section 10(5) of the Act. The result thereof is that the petitioners were denied compensation for the land. Hence, this writ petition.

The petitioners contend that all the orders passed by the 2nd respondent be it under Section 8(4) of the Act or under different sub-sections of Section 10 of the Act are subsequent to the death of the declarant and that proceedings are void abinitio. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent was aware of the death of the declarant and still he proceeded to pass the impugned order only with a view to deprive the petitioners of their right to receive the compensation.

The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. He has narrated the stages, which the declaration submitted by Ramakishtaiah has undergone. It is stated that when steps were taken in January 2008, for service and publication of notices under different subsections of Section 10 of the Act, the enquiry officer reported on 05.02.2008 that the declarant viz., Mr.Rama Kistaiah died. It is also stated that the impugned order was passed on the same day, authorizing the enquiry officer to take possession of the land.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioners feel aggrieved by the order, dated 05.02.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 10(6) of the Act. The said order happens to be, almost the final step in the context of vesting of surplus land under the Act, in the Government.

The basis for issuance of the order under Section 10(6) of the Act is the order, dated 25.02.1991 passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. 17 years after that, the 2nd respondent has resumed the proceedings. In between, the Government initiated steps for acquisition of Ac.4.25 guntas, which constitutes part of land, declared as excess.

The Act was repealed in the year 2008. The repealed Act provided for abatement of the proceedings initiated under the Act, except in cases, where the land vested in the Government under Section 10(6) of the Act. Efforts were made by the Special Officers obviously under the instructions of the Government, to ensure that the orders under Section 10(6) of the Act are passed, wherever it is possible, before the repealing Act came into force.

It has already been mentioned that Rama Kishtaiah died on 08.01.1991 but the order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed on 25.02.1991 in his name. Therefore, the said order itself is a nullity. Assuming that the order dated 25.02.1991 passed under Section 8(4) of the Act remained unchallenged, the 2nd respondent cou