ORDER :

The petitioner filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) in File No.F1/318/76 before the respondent No.2 declaring that she and her husband possessed an extent of 3698.18 sq. meters of land within the urban agglomeration of Hyderabad and New Delhi. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.2 prepared a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act on 28.08.1978 determining that the petitioner is holding excess land of 2698.18 sq. meters in Sy.No.20 of Habsiguda Village, Ranga Reddy District (which according to the petitioner is situated within the peripheral area of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration). The petitioner submitted an exemption application on 07.08.1979 under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent No.3 issued final statement on 14.09.1979 under Section 8(4) of the Act confirming draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act. However, it is stated that the petitioner has not received notice or statement under Section 8(4) or 9 of the Act at any point of time.

2. Section 10(1) notification is said to have been issued published in the Gazette dated 15.05.1980. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed WP.No.5392 of 1980 challenging final statement dated 19.09.1979 and sought a direction to consider the application dated 07.08.1979 for exemption. This Court vide order dated 27.10.1980 in WPMP.No.8060 0f 1980 stayed the publication of Section 10(3) notification in the Gazette. Subsequently, WP.No.5392 of 1980 was allowed by order dated 26.09.1986 following the order passed by this Court in WP.No.5968 of 1983 dated 18.09.1984.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that final statement under Section 9 of the Act dated 19.09.1979 is quashed in view of WP.No.5392 of 1980 being allowed.

4. It appears that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.5013 Revenue dated 19.12.1980 allotting the excess land of the petitioner to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA). Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.492 Revenue dated 27.05.1993 was issued by way of re-allotment in favour of the respondent No.4.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as WP.No.5392 of 1980 was allowed, G.O.Ms.No.5013 dated 19.12.1980 and G.O.Ms.No.492 dated 27.05.1993 are non-est in the eye of law. He further submitted that the respondent No.1 addressed letter dated 03.03.1981 to the respondent No.3 seeking information as to how the excess land was allotted in favour of HUDA when Section 10(3) notification is stayed by this Court and called for a report. However, the respondent No.3 has not submitted any report in that regard. The petitioner has entered into an agreement of sale with one Rajyalakshmi Co-operative Housing Society to alienate the land as per the various guidelines issued by the Central Government as well as by the State Government. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 28.01.1981 wherein it permitted the excess holder to transfer the excess land in favour of Co-operative Housing Societies with certain conditions. The petitioner filed an exemption application under G.O.Ms.No.136 on 25.04.1981. As the Government was not taking any steps to dispose of the said application, the petitioner filed WP.No.4100 of 1981 seeking for a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the said application. WP.No.4100 of 1981 was disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to dispose of the exemption application filed under G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 28.01.1981 within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 rejected the exemption application by memo dated 23.09.1981 on the ground that the land of the petitioner was already allotted to HUDA.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP.No.9168 of 1981 seeking to quash G.O.Ms.No.5013 dated 19.12.1980. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22.01.1982 directing the respondent No.1 to consider the exemption application by cancelling the allotment made in favour of HUDA.

7. It is contended by the p