A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. All these batch of writ petitions raises a common question of law and fact and hence, they are clubbed, heard together and being disposed of by this common order. It would suffice to take WP No. 21580 of 2008 as lead case as the writ is filed by the declarants and covers the lis in other writ petitions as well.

WP No. 21580 of 2008 is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to invalidate the proceedings issued under Sections 8(1), 8(4), 10 (1), 10 (3) and 10 (5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short, 'the ULC Act') and the panchanama dated 04-03-2008 in CC No. F1/9875/76 on the file of 2nd respondent-Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, and for issuance of appropriate consequential directions, in the interest of justice.

2. Case of the petitioners is that N. Linga Rao, 1st petitioner (since deceased) per LRs, petitioners 2 and 3 (sons) and a pre-deceased son by name N. Krishna Rao constituted hindu un-divided family. That the joint family of N. Linga Rao owned and possessed several extents of lands in Kukatpally, Moosapet, Kondapur and Kothaguda villages in Ranga Reddy District. N. Linga Rao had filed a declaration for computation of holding in CC No. F1/9875/76 before the 2nd respondent giving details of the vacant lands held by him in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the ULC Act, as required under Section 6 of the ULC Act. Notices in relation to that computation were issued on 04-09-2008 by the office of the 2nd respondent to the petitioners and to their tenants requiring them to submit applications for regularization of the lands in question in Sy. Nos. 394 part, 395, 396, 423, 429, 406, 427, 428, 430 and 643 of Kukataplly village. It was informed to the petitioners and their tenants that lands in question in the said survey numbers were declared as surplus lands under Section 10(6) of the ULC Act and vested with the Government having taken possession thereof and if regularization of the said lands is not availed, in terms of GO Ms. 747, dated 02-06-2007, action will be taken against to evict them from the said lands.

3. That after receipt of notices dated 04-09-2008, the petitioners enquired in the office of the 2nd respondent, and were informed that order dated 31-07-1982 was passed under Section 8 (1) of the Act and consequential order under Section 8 (4) of the Act was passed against 1st petitioner-N. Linga Rao declaring him as surplus holder of lands in an extent of 55,915.37 sq. mts. and thereafter notices under Section 10(1) was issued on 25-09-1982, under Section 10(3) was issued on 26-03-2001 and under Section 10 (5) was issued on 17-10-2003 to take over possession of the alleged surplus lands in question and the 2nd respondent claims to have taken possession of the lands in question by conducting panchanama on 04-03-2008. Emphatic case of the petitioners is that no notices were issued to the them before or after passing of orders under Sections 8(1) and 8 (4) of the ULC Act muchless issuance of any notices under Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the ULC Act. Petitioners have not received any communication from the 2nd respondent-authorities at any point of time, from the date of submitting declaration by the 1st petitioner-N. Linga Rao. Petitioners obtained certified copies of all the relevant proceedings alleged to have been issued by the 2nd respondent under Right to Information Act and were surprised to note that all the orders were passed ex-parte without any notice to them. Petitioners categorically deny neither they nor their father 1st petitioner-N. Linga Rao have filed any written statement or affidavit giving consent or no objection to take possession of the surplus lands determined under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act.

4. As the proceedings were conducted and concluded behind the back of the petitioners, the proceedings right from the stage of Section 8(1) till Section 10(6) of the ULC Act and the conseque