The central legal point established is that the rejection of regularization applications must comply with the ULC Act and G.O.Ms. No. 455, and must adhere to principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Assignment.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas in Survey No. 128/1 of Yousufguda Village, Khairathabad Mandal, Hyderabad District and the petitioners’ title to the said land was declared as against the original declarants/surplus land holders U. Narmada Devi and Others in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which became final since the suit claim was admitted by the original declarants/defendants in that suit. Subsequently, the subject property was purchased by the petitioners from the original owners of the declarants in the year 1973 and subsequently, O.S. No. 74 of 1992 was filed by the 1st petitioner herein on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad that the 1st petitioner be declared as owner and exclusive possessor of the property bearing No. 128/1 admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District as per plaint plan and for permanent injunction. Further case of the petitioners is that since the land is surplus under the provisions of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (i) as per the declaration submitted by the original owners of declarants in the above suit, the petitioners have availed the benefit of regularization contained in G.O.Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002. Initially, the petitioners’ applications were rejected by the 2nd respondent and hence, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 16658 of 2005 and this Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition holding that the petitioners’ applications under G.O.Ms. No. 455, cannot be rejected by the 2nd respondent and that the 1st respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners’ applications. The 1st respondent, however, vide impugned Memo No. 31342/UC.IV/2004-5, dated 10.04.2007 rejected the petitioners’ applications and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended as follows:

(1) That the 1st petitioner filed O.S. No. 74 of 1992 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 therein and their agents, workmen, representatives not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing Survey No. 128/1 admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District. The lower Court was pleased to grant injunction in favour of the 1st petitioner herein/plaintiff. Basing on the said injunction order dated 20.03.1992 in O.S. No. 74 of 1992, the 1st petitioner-Shabber Ahmed Khan is in judicial possession of the said property.

(2) That the defendants in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 had filed common written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff therein i.e. the 1st petitioner herein stating that the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 executed a regular agreement of sale in favour of the 1st petitioner/plaintiff in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 in respect of the suit land in the year 1973 and that ever since the 1st petitioner/plaintiff is in continuous, uninterrupted possession of the same and the defendants in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 did not deny the title of the 1st petitioner/plaintiff and the judgment dated 20.03.1992 in O.S. No. 74 of 1992 has become final.

(3) That vide, judgment and decree, dated 20.03.1992, the 1st petitioner has been declared as owner and exclusive possessor of the property bearing Survey No. 128/1admeasuring Ac. 1.38 guntas situated at Yousufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District and defendants 1 to 4 therein had been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoymen