If subsequent to filing of suit, certain developments take place that have a bearing on the right to relief claimed by a party, such subsequent events cannot be shut out from consideration.

G. Rohini, J.

The common order dated 8.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.9198 of 2001 and 26206 of 2009 is assailed in these three appeals.

By the said order, both W.P.Nos.9198 of 2001 and 26206 of 2009 were allowed holding that the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘ULC Act’) pursuant to the declarations made by the petitioners in W.P.No.9198 of 2001 stood abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short, ULC Repeal Act).

The petitioners in W.P.No.9198 of 2001 (three in number), who filed statements as required under Section 6 (1) of the ULC Act were held to be excess land holders by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad by order dated 8.11.2000 as confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner, Appeals, Office of the Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad by order dated 28.4.2001. Aggrieved by the said orders, they filed W.P.No.9198 of 2001.

The petitioner in W.P.No.26206 of 2009 is a Housing Co-operative Society which claims title and possession of the excess vacant land under an Agreement of Sale, dated 9.12.1980 executed by the petitioners in W.P.No.9198 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the declarants’). The said Housing Cooperative Society filed W.P.No.26206 of 2009 seeking a declaration that the proceedings in Appeal No.HYD/17/2001, disposed of by order dated 28.04.2001, are abated in pursuance of the ULC Repeal Act which came into force w.e.f. 27.03.2008 and consequently to declare that the petitioner society acquired substantial rights over 67173 sq. mts. of land situated at yousufguda, Hyderabad having purchased under Agreement of Sale dated 9.12.1980.

Both W.P.No.9198 of 2001 and W.P.No.26206 of 2009 were heard together and allowed by the learned Single Judge by common order dated 8.10.2010 which is the subject-matter of the appeals before us.

Writ Appeal No.1150 of 2010 and Writ Appeal No.1151 of 2010 are filed by the State against the orders in W.P.No.9198 of 2001 and W.P.No.26206 of 2009 respectively, whereas Writ Appeal No.30 of 2011 is filed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, which claims that the excess vacant land was put in their possession.

Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration and the parties to all the three appeals are also common, we have heard all the appeals together.

Though the facts have been narrated elaborately in the order under appeal, we deem it necessary to refer to the essential facts for proper appreciation of the controversy involved in the case.

The petitioners in W.P.No.9198 of 2001 claim to be the legal heirs of one G.V.L.S. Sharma who was the owner of Ac.16-23 guntas of land and 115 sq. yards of land in Sy.Nos.105, 110, 113, 114 & 149/3 of Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal (Old Golconda Mandal), Rangareddy District corresponding to TS Nos.16/1 and 16/2. After his death on 8.2.1975, ULC Act came into force and accordingly the petitioners in W.P.No.9198 of 2001 filed their Statements under Section 6 (1) of the ULC Act. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Officer’) by order dated 7.5.1980 held that they are surplus land holders. Against the said order, the declarants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by order dated 27.1.1997 and de no enquiry by the Special Officer was ordered. After conducting such enquiry, the Special Officer passed an order on 8.11.2000 under Section 8 (4) of the ULC Act holding that the declarants were surplus holders of land to an extent of 23930.38 sq. mts. each.

Against the said order, the declarants preferred an appeal along with an application for stay before the Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling-cum-Commissioner of Appeals (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Authority’). Alleging that the appellate authority failed to consider the application for stay, th