S.V. Bhatt, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The issue arises under the Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') and the Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short "the Repeal Act).

3. The petitioners pray for Certiorari to call for the records leading up to and inclusive of the order dated 08.03.2006 in Proceedings No. Fl/5422 to 5425/76 and all consequential notifications and Proceedings No. F2/5422 to 5424/76 dated 02.02.2008 of 2nd respondent and quash the same, as illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

4. The relevant circumstances for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioners filed statement in Form-1 under Section 6(1) of the Act. On 23.02.1987 provisional order under Section 8(1) of the Act was passed determining surplus vacant land held by the petitioners as 69,606.88 square metres. The petitioners filed objections to the provisional determination, and on 30.08.1988 final order under Section 8(4) of the Act was passed declaring the declarants as surplus land holders of a total extent of 33,360.75 square metres. The order under Section 8(4) of the Act was assailed in Appeal Nos. U.C. 1/2425 to 2428/88. The appellate authority through order dated 29.06.1996 remanded the case to 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and orders under Section 8 (4) of the Act.

5. After remand, the 2nd respondent passed order under Section 8(4) of the Act determining surplus holding by petitioners as 31,689.55 square metres. It is relevant to notice that the appellate authority through order dated 29.06.1996 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the applicability of Act to a few survey numbers in view of the notified purpose of survey numbers under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. It is the definite case of petitioners that the land use certificate dated 23.06.1987 issued by HUDA has bearing on the determination of surplus land in the possession of petitioners and according to the said land use certificate, Survey Nos. 592 to 594, 692 to 695 are earmarked for conservation zone and Survey No. 626 is partly shown in conservation zone and partly in residential zone. Survey Nos. 593, 695 to 696 are affected by 60' road. These lands cannot be treated as vacant lands under Section 2 (q) of the Act. Therefore, it is contended that the determination through order dated 08.03.2006 is illegal and contrary to the order passed by the appellate authority on 29.06.1996. The legal objections against the impugned proceedings are: (i) the determination under Section 8(4) of the Act is illegal and contrary to the material available on record, (ii) the 2nd respondent has not followed the mandatory procedure at various stages under Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act. The definite case of petitioners is that the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was not issued to the petitioners at all. Therefore, the consequential proceedings dated 02.02.2008 is illegal, void ab initio and not binding on the petitioners. The petitioners claim to be in physical possession of the survey numbers covered by the declaration. The alleged Panchanama was conducted by the respondents without following the procedure stipulated for taking forceful possession from the petitioners and such acts do not disturb the possession and enjoyment of petitioners of petition land. The Panchanama contains several contradictions on alleged taking over possession from petitioners of petition lands. The petitioners referred to a few interpolations in the Panchanama alleged to have been conducted by the 2nd respondent to claim possession of the petition land. The proceedings under Section 10(6) therefore is not binding on the petitioners and the taking of symbolic possession is impermissible as per the tenor of Sec