These two writ petitions are connected with each other. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

The petitioners in W.P.No.15441 of 2001 are the legal representatives of late Sri Bollaboni Ramaswamy. He held an extent of Ac.1.37 guntas of land in survey Nos.65 and 66 of Uppal Bagath of Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Since the village was included in the Hyderabad urban agglomeration, Ramaswamy filed a declaration before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, the second respondent herein, under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). After processing the declaration, the second respondent passed an order, dated 24.01.1983, under Section 8 (4) of the Act. He took the view that Ramaswamy held an extent of 6840.76 square yards of land in excess of ceiling limits. Against this order, an appeal was filed under Section 33 of the Act before the Commissioner of Appeals, the first respondent herein. Ramaswamy died on 29.01.1999 when the appeal was pending. Not being aware of this development, the first respondent passed an order, dated 31.07.1993. He allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration and disposal.

After remand, the second respondent issued notices in the name of Ramaswamy. The second petitioner, one of the sons of Ramaswamy, appeared before the second respondent and informed that Ramaswamy is no more. Legal representatives of the deceased declarant were not brought on record and through an order, dated 25.02.1994, the second respondent decided that an extent of 6840.76 square meters is in excess of ceiling limits.

The petitioners in W.P.No.15441 of 2001 state that they came to know about the order, dated 25.02.1994, passed by the second respondent only when some Government Officials visited the land and soon thereafter, they presented the appeal before the first respondent. The appeal was rejected as time barred through orders, dated 26.05.2001. They challenge the order, dated 25.02.1994, passed by the second respondent and the one, dated 26.05.2001, passed by the first respondent. They complain of procedural irregularity as well as, denial of benefit under G.O.Ms.733, dated 31.10.1998.

After the land was declared excess, it is said to have handed over to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The land was divided into plots and auction was conducted on 10.12.2001. The petitioners in W.P.No.17954 of 2002 emerged as the highest bidders for two plots, carved out of the land in survey Nos.65 and 66. On coming to know that some disputes are pending in relation to that land and W.P.No.15441 of 2001 was filed, the HUDA issued proceedings, dated 19.07.2002, cancelling the allotment and refunding the amount deposited by the petitioners, together with interest. The proceedings, dated 19.07.2002, are challenged in W.P.No.17954 of 2002.

The first petitioner in W.P.No.17954 of 2002 got himself impleaded as the third respondent in W.P.No.15441 of 2001.

The second respondent in W.P.No.15441 of 2001 filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that once the second petitioner had participated in the proceedings and his contentions were taken into account, there was no necessity to bring the legal representatives of the declarant on record. It is stated that the possession of the land was taken and it is vested in the Government. According to the second respondent, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988. He attempts to sustain the order passed by him, in all respects.

The impleaded party in W.P.No.15441 of 2001 filed a counter-affidavit almost on the same lines.

On behalf of HUDA, a counter affidavit is filed in W.P.No.17954 of 2002, narrating the circumstances that led to the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the petitioners therein.

Sri K.Raghuveer Reedy, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.15