C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

The twenty-three year old litigation is still hanging fire and the original petitioner, who initiated the litigation, having left this mortal world without enjoying the fruits of success before the Special Court, the baton of litigation is passed on to his legal representatives.

2. The dispute is about a valuable parcel of land admeasuring Acs.31.25 guntas in Sy. Nos.43/1, 44/1 and 45/1 of Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District, which is under illegal occupation of respondent Nos.2 to 646 (hereinafter referred to as the private respondents). The original petitioner has succeeded in convincing the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act), that the private respondents have grabbed his land. The Special Court has finally disposed of L.G.C. No.126 of 1995 by its order dt.31.12.1997. The result portion of the said order is apt to be reproduced herein below.

In the result, a decree and judgment is hereby passed in favour of the applicant and as against the respondent Nos.1 to 645 to deliver vacant possession of the application schedule property subject to the result of the appeal preferred by the applicant herein, pending before the Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling Authority, with regard to the application schedule property. If any excess land in the application schedule property is declared as surplus by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and as such surplus land vests in the Government under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Government may consider to regularize the said surplus land in accordance with law in favour of those persons who are found to be in possession of the said surplus land in the application schedule property. The claim of the applicant for mesne profits is dismissed. The L.G.C. as against respondent Nos.646, 647 and 648 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs. The application is decided accordingly.

3. The said order in the L.G.C. came be to be challenged in W.P. No.5440 of 1998 by 234 persons among respondent Nos.2 to 646. A Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment dt.15.06.2009 dismissed the writ petition. Later, the original petitioner has filed I.A. No.1001 of 2009 in L.G.C. No.126 of 1995 for a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, the RDO), Hyderabad to implement the order in L.G.C. No.126 of 1995 and evict the private respondents from the property and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the petitioner. The said application was disposed of by the Special Court on 17.11.2009 whereby it has directed the RDO to handover the vacant possession of the land only to the extent that the petitioner is permitted to hold under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, the 1976 Act) Act. This order was challenged in the present writ petition.

4. The petitioner pleaded that the order passed by the Special Court in I.A. No.1001 of 2009 was contrary to the spirit of the order passed in L.G.C. No.126 of 1995, in that, after passing of the said order, the 1976 Act itself was repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (for short, the Repeal Act), which was adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh, by a Resolution passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature on 27.03.2008, following which G.O. Ms. No.603 (Revenue (UC.I) Department, dt.22.04.2008 and Circular Memo No.17377/ UC.I(1)/2008-1, dt.24.4.2008, were issued. Based on these subsequent events, the petitioner pleaded that as the condition stipulated in clause (a) of the said Memo, dt.24.4.2008, namely, only cases in which possession of surplus lands taken by Government u/s.10(6) will be saved is not satisfied in the present case, as, admittedly the Government has not taken the ceiling proceedings beyond the stage of Section 10(1), and has not taken possession of the land, the petitioner