IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.4887, 4897, 4903 and 4923 of 2014 WP.No.4887 of 2014:
BETWEEN Raisunnisa.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra PRadesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS WP.No.4897 of 2014:
BETWEEN Yasir Mahmood Hussaini.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra PRadesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS WP.No.4903 of 2014:
BETWEEN Naheed Lateefunnisa.
... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra PRadesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS WP.No.4923 of 2014:
BETWEEN Syeda Rafath Sultana Zareena.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra PRadesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. B. VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are purchasers, claim to have purchased the property from the legal heirs of one Mr. M.A. Khusro, the declarant in C.C.No.6980/1976 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. At the time of admission of these writ petitions on 20.02.2014, it was noticed that another purchaser, similar to the petitioners herein, had approached this Court in WP.No.14014 of 2010, which was allowed by this Court on 1812.2013, primarily, on the ground that the declarant had died long back and notices under Section 10(1) and 10(6) of the Act dated 08.03.1989 and 17.11.2004 respectively were issued to him and further proceedings finalized, were quashed as void ab initio, as no proceedings could have been taken against a dead person. Since the said order appears to have attained finality, as admittedly, no appeal is preferred against the said order even as on today, as per the counter affidavit and instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, there is no reason why the petitioners herein are not entitled to the same benefit as that of the petitioner in WP.No.14014 of 2010.
In view of that, this writ petitions shall stand allowed and the impugned proceedings shall stand quashed so far as petitioners are concerned. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 1, 2014 DSK