V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, directing the Deputy Director to make corrections in the revenue records and to deliver possession of the lands originally declared as surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (ULC Act) to the erstwhile owners, who filed declarations under the Act.

2. We have heard Mr. B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana), Mr. T. Surya Satish, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 12 and Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the 13th respondent.

3. The pleadings with which the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, in brief, are as follows:

(i) the petitioner company purchased land of a total extent of Ac.4.26 guntas in Survey Nos.56, 57 and 59 of Madinaguda village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under 11 different sale deeds, respectively dated 28-02-1998, 16- 03-1998, 17-07-1998, 18-07-1998, 18-07-1998, 31-07-1998, 31-07-1998, 15-04-1999, 15-04-1999, 29-10-1999 and 29- 10-1999;

(ii) that the writ petitioners vendors purchased the said land, under 7 different sale deeds, respectively dated 29-04-1993, 24-01-1998, 23-03-1992, 12-05-1993, 14-07-1993, 14-07-1993 and 18-05-1998, from a lady by name Hari Kaur Pershad;

(iii) that the previous owner Hari Kaur Pershad and her joint pattedar Mrs. Champa Devi earlier filed a statement under Section 6 (1) of the ULC Act, in respect of the lands that they held in Survey Nos.54/B, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60 and 64 of Madinaguda village;

(iv) that after conducting an enquiry, the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) issued a draft statement under Section 8 (1) of the ULC Act, declaring an area of 1,18,790.6 sq.mtrs. as surplus;

(v) that a notice under Section 8 (3) of the ULC Act was issued, objections were filed on 24-07-1985, final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act was issued on 20-08-1985 and the declarations under Sections 10 (1) and 10 (3) of the ULC Act ere issued and a consequential orders were passed under Section 10 (6) of the Act;

(vi) that by a Panchanama dated 20-06-1998, it was recorded as though possession was taken;

(vii) that the ULC proceedings became the subject matter of several rounds of litigation and every order passed by the Competent Authority was set aside by the Appellate Authority and the matter got remanded at least thrice;

(viii) that by successive orders of remand and re-enquiry, the ULC proceedings were kept alive and burning until the Act was repealed and the Repeal Act was adapted by the State of Andhra Pradesh on 27-03-2008;

(ix) that thereafter persons claiming to be the family members of the original owner Hari Kaur Pershad filed an application on 14-08-2008 for redelivery of possession;

(x) that by the order dated 09-11-2010, the Competent Authority (ULC) directed redelivery to the legal heirs of the persons who originally filed declarations under Section 6 (1) of the ULC Act (namely the descendants of the Pershad family); and

(xi) that since the petitioner purchased the property in question from persons to whom Hari Kaur Pershad herself had alienated the same, the question of redelivery to the original owners would not arise and that therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file the writ petition challenging the order dated 09-11-2010.

4. The grounds on which the petitioner challenges the impugned order are:

(i) that as against an order dated 06-11-2006 passed under Section 8 (4) of the ULC Act, two sets of appeals came to be filed, one by persons claiming to be protected tenants in respect of Survey Nos.54 and 55 and another by the petitioner herein in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.56, 57, 59, 60 and 64 and the appeals were allowed in the very presence of those who filed declarations under Section 6 (1) of the Act and hence, they cannot toda