Proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, are illegal and void if notices under Section 10(5) are not served on the persons in actual possession, especially when such proceedings involve a deceased individual and fail to account for lawful occupants.

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records relating to the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, under Sections 8(4), dated 15.11.1994, 10(3) dated 03.12.1997, 10(5) dated 19.05.1998 and 10(6) dated 23.04.1999 passed by the 2nd Respondent, in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.3-04 guntas in Sy.No.134 held by the 1st Petitioner, Acs.4-35 guntas in Sy.No.134 held by the 2nd Petitioner and Acs.2-14 guntas in Sy.No.133 held by the 3rd Petitioner, situated at Kismatpur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act and consequently set aside the said proceedings, and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the respective lands and to direct Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to re-incorporate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Heard Mr. M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Assignment, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1 The 1st petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.3-04 guntas in Survey No.134 of Kismatpur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.6297 of 1994, dated 30.03.1994, from M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited, Hyderabad, and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment thereof. The 2nd petitioner purchased Acs.4-35 guntas in Survey No.134 under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.6296 of 1994, dated 30.03.1994, from the same vendor. The 3rd petitioner purchased Acs.2-14 guntas in Survey No.133 under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2715 of 1994, dated 28.03.1994, from the original owners and M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited, Hyderabad, and all the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands.

3.2 Originally, the lands in Survey Nos.133 and 134 were owned by late Mirza Gazanfar Baig, s/o Ameer Baig, who sold the same to M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited under Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.4799 of 1981, dated 30.05.1981, after obtaining Certificate No.ULC D.Dis.No.C5/1328/80, dated 05.05.1981, from the 2nd respondent, certifying that the lands are agricultural and not covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (“ULC Act”). After the purchase, the name of M/s Bio Vaccines Private Limited, Hyderabad, was mutated in the revenue records, and it continued as the owner till 1994. The pahanis consistently depict the lands as agricultural, and no master plan existed for Kismatpur Village in 1976. The lands are also situated in the peripheral area of Hyderabad agglomeration and are entitled to exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 18.04.2000.

3.3 Despite the above, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under the ULC Act in the name of late Mirza Gazanfar Baig, who had passed away on 11.06.1979. Notice under Section 8(3) was issued in Proceedings No.D1/8350/76 dated 01.07.1994. Subsequently, orders under Section 8(4) dated 15.11.1994 were passed determining surplus land, followed by Notification under Section 10(3) dated 03.02.1997, notice under Section 10(5) dated 19.05.1998, and notice under Section 10(6) dated 23.04.1999, all in the name of a deceased person. Earlier, notice under Section 6(2) dated 28.07.1992 was issued to M/s. Bio Vaccines Private Limited, but no declaration was obtained from them. The proceedings were continued illegally, claiming paper possession without actual dispossession, while the petitioners remained in lawfu