Notices issued against deceased individuals are deemed illegal, reaffirming prior judicial findings and protecting property rights.

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr.Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.H.Somaiah Ezra Sastri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment and Mr.Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for proposed respondent No.6.

2. Petitioners herein are claiming that petitioner No.1 has purchased plot bearing Nos.319 and 320, admeasuring 600 square yards in Sy.No.104/1, situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Circle, Rangareddy District, under two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4602 and 4603 of 1998, both dated 25.06.1998. Petitioner No.1 has also obtained building permit order dated 25.02.2024 from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for construction of 1 stilt + 5 upper floors.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No.1 almost completed the construction strictly in accordance with the said building permit order, dated 25.02.2024. Even then respondent No.4 has issued impugned notice dated 27.08.2024 under Section 7 of the Telangana State Land Encroachment Act , 1905, Act III of 1905 (for short, ‘the Act, 1905’), alleging that petitioner No.1 is the encroacher of the land admeasuring 600 square yards in Sy.No.104, situated at Kondapur Village and it is a Government Land and sought for explanation from petitioner No.1 as to why he should not be evicted in addition to the full assessment on the land under Section 3(i) of the Act, 1905 on or before 06.09.2024. Challenging the said notice, petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that vide common order dated 02.03.2009, this Court allowed the Writ petition Nos.10813 and 18324 of 2008 , holding that notice dated 10.01.2007 issued against a dead person and order dated 02.02.2008 passed under Section 10 (6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act , 1976 (for short, ‘the Act, 1976’) are illegal and the same are set aside. Challenging the aforesaid common order, State preferred appeals vide Writ Appeal (SR) Nos.136868 and 136970 of 2012. Vide common order dated 18.09.2012, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeals holding that State failed to explain the reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Thereafter, matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State by filing S.L.P.No.No.10424 – 10427 of 2013 and the same was also dismissed on 03.02.2014. Even then without considering the said aspects, respondent No.4 had issued the impugned notice.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.3 has issued notice dated 10.07.2007 under the Act, 1976 against one of the vendors of the petitioners i.e., Smt.Abbineni Anasuya. On the date of 10.01.2007, she was no more and she died on 29.12.2000 itself. Therefore, this Court allowed the said writ petitions and set aside the notice dated 10.01.2007 and order dated 02.02.2008. Therefore, notice issued against dead person is illegal. Writ appeals and SLP filed by the State were also dismissed. Therefore, respondent No.4 can’t issue impugned notice dated 27.08.2024 to the petitioners herein alleging that he is in illegal occupation of the subject property. In the schedule of the said notice, there is specific mention about the ULC surplus in the description column. On consideration of the said aspects, vide order dated 03.09.2024 this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 27.08.2024. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 27.08.2025 issued by respondent No.4 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

6. According to the petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2025, GPA No.31 of 1988, dated