Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the Court allowed Writ Petition No.16267 of 2017 filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 11 in the Writ Appeal holding, inter alia, that the act of taking possession of the scheduled property by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the Writ Petition, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the Tahsildar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the Village Revenue Officer, Yellareddyguda Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was not in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge further held that the lands of the writ petitioners were saved by virtue of section 4 of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (the ‘Repeal Act’) as the possession of the subject lands was not taken in accordance with law by the respondents.

2. The appellants before us are the State of Telangana and the District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

3. The learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the writ petitioners did not have any objection to the land being declared surplus by the competent authority and that notices were issued to the writ petitioners in 1988 and 1989 and again in 2006 and 2007 after which possession of the lands was taken under cover of a Panchanama dated 21.08.2007. The Government Pleader urges that the appellants took possession of the lands only after following due process and that the findings of the learned Single Judge are contrary in the facts and the law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 to 11/writ petitioners submits that the writ petitioner Nos.1 to 4 had filed separate declarations under section 6(1) of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (‘the ULC Act, 1976’) before the District Collector to determine their holdings and the District Collector passed a preliminary order dated 11.04.1976 under section 8(1) of the Act pursuant to which the declarants filed their objections. It is submitted that the District Collector passed the final orders under section 8(4) of the Act holding that the writ petitioners are surplus landholders to the extent of 15959.37 sq. mts. each.

5. Counsel further submits that the District Collector allegedly published a Notification under section 10(1) of the Act intimating that the lands mentioned in the Schedule therein were acquired by the Government as excess vacant land. Counsel further submits that the aforesaid notices as well as the later notices issued under sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act suffer from several defects which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge that the appellants failed to follow the procedure stipulated under the ULC Act, 1976 for taking possession of the respondents’ land.

6. Counsel further denies that the Government ever took possession of the subject lands and relies on the documents filed along with the Writ Petition, including Pattadar Passbooks, Pahanies, electricity consumption charges and bills, sale deeds and photographs. Counsel submits that all these documents would show that the appellants did not take possession of the lands. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners came to know only in March 2017 that the property had been classified as prohibited property under section 22A of The Registration Act, 1908.

7. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the material placed on record.

8. Both the parties have relied on the provisions of the ULC Act, 1976 as they were prevalent at the time of the alleged taking over of the writ petitioners’ land as surplus land. This Act however was repealed with the coming into force of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (‘the ULC Repeal Act, 1999’) in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.03.2008. The ULC Repeal Act, 1999 would be relevant in this connection and we propose to rely on the same at a later part of this judgment.

9. The represented respondents/writ petitioners claim to be the owners of Ac.1-14 gts. in Sy.No.61 and Ac.1-35 gts. in Sy.No.68/1 at Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The writ petitioners claim to have inherited the land from their ancestors. The writ petitioners also claim to have cultivated the land for a considerable length of time and continue to do so, as would be evident from the documents filed along with the Writ Petition, including Pattadar Passbooks, Pahanies and electricity bills. The respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition/the Village Revenue Officer visited the subject land on 20.04.2017 and sought to erect a board on the property indicating the land to be Government ceiling surplus land. The writ petitioners were also threatened with dispossession on 22.04.2017.

10. The writ petitioners were hence constrained to approach the Court in 2017 seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the action of the respondents on 22.04.2017 against treating the subject land as surplus land under the ULC Act, 1976 and declaring the action as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the rights guaranteed to the writ petitioners under the Constitution of India.

11. The crux of the dispute between the parties is whether the writ petitioners were served with notices as mandatorily required under sections 10(5) & 10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976 before the acquisition of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. The sequence of the sub-sections under section 10 of the ULC Act, 1976 is required to be briefly explained.

12. Section 10(1) requires the competent authority to cause a Notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by the person, whose land has been determined as vacant land in excess of the ceiling under section 9. The Notification requires a statement that the vacant land has been acquired by the concerned State Government and the claims of all persons interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of their interests in such land, to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be prescribed.

13. Section 10(2) requires the competent authority to consider the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass orders thereafter.

14. Section 10(3) stipulates that at any time after the publication of the notification under section 10(1), the competent authority may, by Notification published in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to, in the Notification published under section 10(1) shall, with effect from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government. Upon the publication of such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified.

15. Section 10(4) prohibits persons from transferring or altering the land specified in the Notification during the period commencing from the date of publication of the Notification under section 10(1) and the date specified in the declaration made under section 10(3).

16. Sections 10(5) & (6) are relevant for the purpose of the present adjudication.

17. Section 10(5) stipulates that where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under section 10(3), the Competent Authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of it, to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice.

18. Section 10(6) provides that if any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under section 10(5), the Competent Authority may take possession of the vacant land or cause it to be given to the concerned State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

19. In the present case, the notice under Section 10(5), allegedly issued on 16.11.2006 directing the declarants to surrender the land within thirty days from the date of service, is on record. However, the notice is incomplete as it suffers from the following defects.

               (i) The date on which the subject lands were vested under section 10(3) is blank.

               (ii) The Notification number is blank.

               (iii) There is no proof that the Notice dated 16.11.2006 was served to the writ petitioner Nos.1 to 4 as required under section 10(5) of the ULC Act, 1976.

20. The appellants/State contend that the District Collector also allegedly issued a notice under section 10(6) dated 12.03.2007 directing an Enquiry Officer to take over the possession of the land and hand over the same to the Tahsildar. However, the said notice dated 12.03.2007 also contains the following defects.

               (i) The space where the name of the Enquiry Officer was to be mentioned is blank.

               (ii) The notice does not mention any date including as to when the thirty days timeframe is to expire.

               (iii) There is no proof that this notice was served on the writ petitioner Nos.1 to 4.

21. Even the alleged Panchanama dated 21.08.2007, being the date on which the land was allegedly taken over by the appellants, contains the following blank spaces/gaps:

               (i) No date is mentioned as to when the final order was passed by the District Collector.

               (ii) No dates or proceedings are mentioned with regard to the alleged orders passed by the District Collector under section 10(5).

               (iii) No dates or proceedings are mentioned with regard to the notice being issued to the writ petitioners under section 10(6).

22. The serious nature of the lacunae as stated above were confirmed in the findings of the learned Single Judge.

23. The learned Single Judge also referred to Rule 5(2) of The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976 which requires service of notice through Registered Post and noted the fact that the respondents in the Writ Petition (appellants herein) did not comply with the required mode of service. The learned Single Judge also found that no notice was served on the writ petitioners under section 10(5) or under section 10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976 and that the learned Government Pleader had not rebutted the the fact of non-service of notice.

24. After perusing the documents, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no proof of service either of the notice dated 16.11.2006 or the dated 20.03.2007 passed under sections 10(5) and (6), respectively. The learned Single Judge accordingly concluded that the mandatory requirement of service of notice under sections 10(5) & 10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976 had not been complied with and hence the possession allegedly taken by the appellants herein of the subject land on 21.08.2007 was void.

25. The writ appellants have not shown any material which would dislodge the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge.

26. We also agree with the reliance placed on the provisions of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999. Section 3 of the Repeal Act provides that the Repeal of the 1976 Act would not affect the vesting of any vacant land under sub-section (3) of section 10 where possession has already been taken over by the State Government or by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Repeal Act provides that all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal Act (the ULC Act, 1976) pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, before any Court, Tribunal or other authority shall abate. The proviso to section 4 of the Repeal Act clarifies that section 4 shall not apply to proceedings relating to sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Principal Act, i.e., the ULC Act, 1976 insofar as such proceedings are relatable to land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government.

27. Significantly, there was no pleading before the Writ Court that the Government had taken over possession of the said land on any particular date.

28. In effect, if actual possession has not been taken over by the competent authority, then the proceedings under the 1976 Act would automatically abate by virtue of the Repeal Act of 1999: State of Gujarat v. Gyanaba Dilavarsinh Jadeja ((2013) 11 SCC 486).

29. The learned Single Judge found that the proceedings under the ULC Act, 1976 abated upon the ULC Repeal Act coming into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.03.2008 and the land of the writ petitioners stood saved under section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999.

30. We agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the alleged possession of the writ petitioners’ lands was not in accordance with law.

31. We have stated the reasons for the same including the fact that the procedure laid down under sections 10(5) & 10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976 was not complied with. Hence, the taking over of the possession as on 21.08.2007 was void. Since the act of taking over the possession was not done under the required procedure established under sections 10(5) & 10(6) of the ULC Act, 1976, the appellants cannot claim any advantage from section 3(1)(a) or the proviso to section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999. The writ petitioners would hence fall within section 4 of the ULC Repeal Act, 1999 where all the proceedings undertaken under the ULC Act, 1976 pending immediately before the commencement of the Repeal Act would stand abated.

32. In this connection, we also accept the submission made on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners that there cannot be any objection raised on account of the alleged delay or limitation against the writ petitioners. This is by reason of the fact that section 4 of the Repeal Act resulted in the abatement of all proceedings and the writ petitioners are entitled to argue that the proceedings initiated under the Principal Act, 1976, would no longer have any force, and that the writ petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act.

33. Under such circumstances, the question of delay or laches would not be relevant: A. Chammundeswari & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023 (5) CTC 457).

34. In any event, there is no pleading on record stating that the appellants ever took possession of the subject property. It is only in the Grounds of the Writ Appeal that the appellants mention that the land was taken over under an alleged Panchanama on 21.08.2007. In Ground No.4, the appellants state that possession of the surplus land was taken over on 11.03.2008 after conducting a Panchanama. We have pointed out serious defects in the alleged Panchanama itself. We are also of the view that the question of any delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching the Writ Court would not be relevant once the ULC Act 1976, itself was repealed.

35. The above reasons persuade us to hold that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10.04.2017 and consequently the impugned order does not call for interference.

36. W.A.No.184 of 2024, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.