Order :

Petitioner Nos.1 to 9 are children and petitioner No.10 is wife of late Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan. He holds an extent of Acs.9.00 of land in Survey Nos.216/2 and 218/2 of Khairtabad Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, as an Inamdar. He submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate (O.R.C.) under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1967 (for short "the 1967 Act'-). During the pendency of the application, he died on 24.07.1987. The petitioners herein came on record as his legal representatives and pursued the matter. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order, dated 15.07.1989, granting O.R.C. for 3642.93 square metres of land each, in favour of the petitioners.

2. The land is within the Urban Agglomeration of Hyderabad and is covered by the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act'). Since the holdings of the petitioners exceeded 1000 square metres, all of them filed individual declarations before the Special Officer and Competent Authority, respondent No.2 herein. The applications were processed and a common draft statement under Section 8(1), together with a notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued on 16.01.1992 by respondent No.2. It was mentioned that the petitioners are entitled to retain 1000 square metres each and that they are liable to surrender 2642.93 square metres each. Before any further steps could be taken in pursuance of the notice, dated 16.01.1992, respondent No.2 issued a revised draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act on 16.02.1994. It was mentioned that the District Collector, Hyderabad in his letter, dated 20.04.1992 stated that the order, dated 15.07.1989, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad issuing O.R.C. in favour of the petitioners is not regular. Taking that letter into account, respondent No.2 issued fresh notice to the effect that the entire land of Acs.9.00 is to be computed to the holdings of Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan and that he was entitled to retain only 1000 square metres of land and that the rest of the land must be surrendered to the Government. The notice was addressed to the legal representatives of Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan (died). This was followed by an order, dated 07.07.1994, under Section 8(4) of the Act stating that no explanation/objection was received for the draft statement, dated 16.02.1994, and that the entire land except to the extent of 1000 square metres is excess of ceiling limits.

3. The petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 against the order, dated 07.07.1994. The appeal was rejected on 27.01.2006. The petitioners challenge the same. They contend that there was absolutely no basis for respondent No.2 to compute the land to the holding of a dead person, that too, in the declarations filed by them i.e. the petitioners. It is also stated that the O.R.C. granted in their favour is in force and the orders impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained in law. They also complain that no notice was issued to them before the draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act issued by respondent No.2 was revised.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The facts mentioned above are not controverted. It is, however, stated that as on the date on which the Act came into force, Mohd.Fareeduddin Khan was the owner and that he was entitled to retain one standard holding. It is urged that during the pendency of the proceedings, notices under different sub-sections of Section 10 of the Act were issued and possession of the land was taken.

5. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 committed serious irregularities and illegalities at various stages of the proceedings. He contends that once a draft statement under Section 8(1) of the Act was issued, valuable right accrued to the declarants and it can be modified only after issuing notice to t