ORDER :

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent authorities in determining an extent of 6295 sq. meters out of Ac.4.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.123, 124, 125, 128, 143 and 145 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as excess vacant land of the respondent No.7 and late B. Pochaiah in proceedings CC.No.H1/29/2007 dated 10.03.2008 including draft statement under Section 8(1), notice under Section 8(3), orders under Section 8(4), final statement under Section 9, notifications under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’) and panchanama dated 02.05.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the ULC Repeal Act and consequently, hold that the impugned proceedings would not affect right, title, interest and possession of the petitioners over the subject property.

2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the writ affidavit, as are under :

(a) That petitioners No.2 and 3 and their father late Maraboina Durgaiah purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas in Sy.Nos.123, 124, 125, 128, 143 and 145 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed bearing document No.3109/1995 dated 09.03.1995 from one Buyya Balaraj and seven others for a valuable sale consideration. The said land is an agricultural land and being cultivated by the petitioners from time to time. The land does not come within the purview of the ULC Act. Therefore, there was no legal hitch for purchasing the said land, which is automatically exempted under the provisions of Chapter III of ULC Act as per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988.

(b) That the vendor of the petitioners are eight in number and each one of them is entitled for automatic exemption of Ac.5.00 guntas under G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988. Thus, the total land in an extent of 40 acres of the vendors was liable for exemption. Apart from that the vendors of the petitioners were also entitled to sell the land and there was not legal hitch to execute sale deed in respect of the subject land as the judgment of the Supreme Court in ATIYA MOHAMMADI BEGUM v. STATE OF U.P., AIR 1993 SC 2465 was holding the field. The subject land was not covered by the master plan, which existed, when the ULC Act came into force with effect from 17.02.1976.

(c) That the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ATIYA MOHAMMADI BEGUM’s case (1 supra) was reversed by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. N. AUDIKESAVA REDDY, AIR 2002 SC 5. However, as the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1995, the same is valid and the later judgment of the Supreme Court in AUDIKESAVA REDDY’s case (2 supra) would not nullify the sale deed of the petitioners. The vendor of the petitioner B. Pochaiah died on 02.11.1995. Notice issued under Section 6(2) of the ULC Act dated 12.01.2007 against late B. Pochaiah, who died by then, is illegal and unsustainable and the entire ULC proceedings are vitiated.

(d) The respondent authorities do not have jurisdiction to determine the subject land of the petitioners as surplus. The same is done behind the back of the petitioners on the basis of Section 6(2) notice dated 12.01.2007, draft statement under Section 8(1) and notice under Section 8(3) dated 26.02.2007, order under Section 8(4), final statement under Section 9 dated 12.06.2007, Section 10(1) notification dated 27.10.2007, Section 10(3) notification dated 20.11.2007 published in A.P. Gazette No.311 dated 06.11.2007, Section 10(5) notice dated 17.0.2008 and panchanama dated 02.05.2008 and the same is non-est in the eye of law.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent No.2 on behalf of respondents, which, in brief, states as follows :

(a) The sale deed dated 09.03.1995 in favour of the petitioners is null and void and is in violation of Section 5(3) and 10(4) of the ULC Act. The petitioners are neither