Proceedings issued under the Urban Land Ceiling Act against a deceased declarant are null and void; possession must be established prior to claiming surplus land.

ORDER:

The matter arises under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. It is claimed that the petitioners No.1 and 2 have jointly purchased the immovable property comprising of old structure known as ‘Vijaya Talkies’, admeasuring 7073 sq. feet bearing Municipal No.7-1-620 along with appurtenant open land, totally admeasuring 4,685 sq. yards, in Sy.No.26 of Ameerpet Revenue Village, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, within the limits of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, under registered sale deed bearing document No.2031 of 2010 dated 04.08.2010.

3. It is stated that the predecessor-in-title, late Sri. Mohd Hyder Ali Khan, was the owner and possessor of lands in (1) Premises No.7-1-620, Sy.Nos.25, 26 and 30, T.S.No.8 of Ameerpet to an extent of 2285.86 sq. meters, (2) land in Sy.No.52 (T.S.No.12) to an extent of 107.00 sq. meters, (3) land in Sy.No.41, T.S.No.24 of Ameerpet to an extent of 430.00 sq. meters and (4) land in Sy.No.22/3 of Yellareddyguda (T.S.No.17 & 13/6) of Gudimalkapur. Hyder Ali Khan died on 01.03.1998 leaving behind Smt. Fathima Khatoon, Mohd Mukther Ali Khan and Mohd Murtuza Ali Khan, who are vendors of the petitioners. During lifetime of Hyder Ali Khan, declaration was filed under Section 6(1) of the Act before the respondent No.1-Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling. The respondent No.1 issued provisional statement and the declarants submitted objections. The respondent No.1 passed final order under Section 8(4) of the Act dated 30.04.1993 determining Hyder Ali Khan as surplus land holder in an extent of 18,752.90 sq. meters. Aggrieved by the said order, the declarants filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal was allowed vide proceedings No.ULC Appeal No.Hyd/44/2001 dated 11.01.2002 remanding the case to the respondent No.1 with a direction to re-compute the holding and revise final order keeping in view the observations made therein. It is stated that the order passed in the appeal is non-est since it was passed after the death of declarant, without bringing the legal representatives on record.

4. It is stated that after remand of the matter, the respondent No.1 passed order in Proceedings No.B1/11799/76, B1/11951/76 to 11958/76 & 2254, 2255 & 12253/76 dated 15.03.2004 determining Hyder Ali Khan as surplus land holder for an extent of 18,752.90 sq. meters. By the time, the aforesaid order was passed, Hyder Ali Khan died and order was passed against a dead person, which is non-est in the eye of law. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 issued notice under Section 10(5) of the Act dated 30.09.2005 to the declarants calling upon them to deliver possession of the surplus land within thirty days. The respondent No.1 appointed one Mr. Rameswara Rao, as Enquiry Officer, authorizing him to take over the possession of the land in question under Section 10(6) of the Act. It is stated that even today the respondent authorities did not take possession of the land. The subject land has been acquired by HUDA for development and construction of commercial buildings but the said purpose has not been served due to non-viability and the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 15.07.2010 de-notified the subject land by withdrawing the land from acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that the subject land is in physical possession of the petitioners from the date of purchase.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 initially and su