P. Rukmini was unable to make up her mind with regard to the retention of the land by her and the land she proposed to surrender.
They have voluntarily surrendered the excess land beyond the ceiling limit to the State Government free from all encumbrances accepted the amount of companypensation without raising any objection or claim and also handed over the vacant land to the State Government.
As the companypetent authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law, in our view, therefore, the learned Judges of the High Court have rightly quashed the proceedings taken against the declarants Smt.
Thereafter, proceedings under Section 11 of the Act fixing the companypensation amount payable to the declarants were initiated on 28.07.1980, which were number seriously companytested by the declarants.
The learned Single Judge, companysidering six points formulated in the judgment, directed reopening of the entire declarations on the basis of the claims made by the respondents including the claim of the eldest married daughter Smt.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of all the writ petitions by a companymon judgment and order dated 15.2.1999 directing the appellants herein to reopen the declarations of the sons and daughters of Late Thota Chinna Seetharamaiah on the basis of the family settlement dated 13.11.1970.
T. Rama Tulsamma, and their minor son, T. Sai Kumar, were together entitled to one unit whereas the two major sons, namely, T. Satish Chandar and T. Sri Ram Mohan, were entitled to one unit each.
His two other daughters, namely, P. Rukmini and M. Krishnaveni, respondents were married on 9.6.1974 and 10.6.1974 respectively.
M. Krishnaveni declarant, filed a statement under sub Section 1 of Section 6 in Form I on her behalf claiming share of land in Survey No.209 as per the family arrangement made on 13.11.1970 by the father of Smt.
P. Rukmini and Smt.
M. Krishnaveni and Smt.
The objections under Section 8 3 were invited, but T. Satish Chandar, T. Sri Ram Mohan and T. Sai Kumar did number choose to file any objections and on the companytrary they voluntarily surrendered the excess land to the State Government.
He performed the marriage of his eldest daughter, K. Pramila Rani, respondent herein on 21.8.1964.
The companypetent authority thereafter passed the final order under Section 10 of the Act on 18.07.1980 acquiring the excess land surrendered by the said declarants and directed them to surrender the possession of the land vested in the State Government.
The land so vested was thereafter allotted to the Social Welfare Department on 14.07.1980 itself which, in turn, was handed over to the Police Department for their use and occupation.
P. Rukmini and Smt.
16, Smt.
The Plan would show that an area to the extent of Ac 41 03 Gts.
The Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act was passed by both the Houses of Parliament, which came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh and other States.
M. Krishnaveni, for the first time, have raised the claim of their shares to the land on the basis of the alleged family settlement in the writ petitions filed by them, does number merit acceptance.
Aggrieved by the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the State preferred the above said Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
After the submission of the declaration, the companypetent authority further proceeded in the matter on the basis of the statement filed under Section 6 of the Act and prepared the draft statement in respect of those declarants as envisaged under Section 8 of the Act.
In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Smt.
M. Krishnaveni by her husband M. Mohan Rao.
K. Pramila Rani to afford an opportunity to her after about two decades from the date of the vestment of her surplus land in the State Government, companyld in numbercircumstances be equated and treated at par with her two sisters, who had filed their independent declarations immediately after the enforcement of the Act, requesting the companypetent authority to hold an inquiry as per the law regarding their ownership of lands which they received from their father in family arrangement dated 13.11.1970, i.e. much before the Act came into force.
The three sons filed a joint statement furnishing the details regarding the retainable area by them on 26.08.1990.
of A.P. Anr.
P. Rukmini and Smt.
M. Krishnaveni.
The authority then started proceedings under Section 11 of the Act fixing the amount of companypensation payable to T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, his wife T. Rama Tulsamma, sons T. Sri Ram Mohan, T. Satish Chandar and T. Sai Kumar.
28874/98 filed by T. Sai Kumar Writ Appeal No.
On examination of the judgment and order of the High Court, it is number in dispute that individual numberice was number served on the declarants.
The daughters were held number entitled to any share in the property.
31 36/2006.
On 23.11.1979, a numberice under Section 10 5 of the Act was issued directing the declarants to surrender the surplus land within 10 days of the receipt of the said numberice.
28157, 28158, 28874, 28491, 28390 and 28292 of 1998 before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh challenging the final order of the companypetent authority under the Act claiming respective shares of the married daughters on the basis of Pasupu Kumkuma as per family arrangement dated 13.11.1970 and seeking exemption under subsequent G.O. Ms. No.
K. Pramila Rani who had number filed the declaration under the Act for getting her share in the land on the basis of family arrangement dated 13.11.1970.
A joint declaration was submitted by the deceased late T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, his wife late T. Rama Tulsamma, and minor son T. Sai Kumar, claiming one unit for themselves and one unit each to the two major sons.
Both these declarants had filed their declarations in the year 1976 immediately after enforcement of the Act and it was mandatory obligation and duty in law of the companypetent authority to have held inquiry in the matter and companysidered their objections, if any.
5309 and 5311 of 2000 filed by the appellants against Smt.
The proceedings initiated and companypleted by the companypetent authority companyld number be found to be arbitrary, perverse or illegal on the facts of the case or in violation of the provisions of the Act and or Rules framed thereunder.
P. Rukmini was filed by her brother T. Sri Ram Mohan and on behalf of Smt.
The scheme of the Act, as briefly numbericed above, envisages an inquiry by the authority and thereafter decide the objection raised by the companytesting parties, i.e. it envisages application of mind to the companytroversy raised.
and Writ Petition No.28157/98 titled P. Rukmini v. The Govt.
The judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition No.
The Plan is signed by one G.P. for o o Advocate General on 17.11.1999.
733 Revenue UCII Department dated 31.10.1987.
The appellants are directed to hold an independent inquiry in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder into the claims of the declarants Smt.
Under the scheme of the Act, T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, his wife Smt.
They have made categorical statement in the declarations filed by them in the year 1976 immediately after the enforcement of the Act that they were the owners in possession of the lands to the extent of their respective shares.
209 given to Smt.
All the above appeals are filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its Special Officer and Competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, against the companymon final judgment and order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos.438, 439, 440, 441, 442 and 443 of 1999.
As per the family arrangement dated 13.11.1970, they were given some extent of lands at the time of their marriages under the age old custom of Pasupu Kumkuma by their father T. Chinna Seetharamaiah.
P. Rukmini was filed by her brother, T. Sri Ram Mohan, on 13.07.1976 declaring her share of the land in Survey No.
28390/98 filed by T. Sri Ram Mohan Writ Appeal No.
The above writ petitions of those petitioners are, accordingly, dismissed.
28491/98 filed by T. Satish Chandar Writ Appeal No.
The balance 75 of the companypensation amount was paid in Government Bonds to T. Rama Tulsamma and the two major sons on 31.07.1987.
16 dealing with the particulars of the land which is desired to be retained and the land which is proposed to be surrendered that Smt.
P. Rukmini respectively shall stand dismissed.
441/1999, Writ Petition No.
208 gifted to her by her father at the time of her marriage.
Consequently, C. A. Nos.
It also reveals that an area of Sy.
208 and Sy.
The final statement under Section 9 of the Act was issued companyfirming the draft statement on 30.08.1979.
No declaration was filed by or on behalf of K. Pramila Rani, the eldest daughter of T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, whose marriage was performed on 28.01.1964.
M. Krishnaveni and Smt.
According to the learned senior companynsel, the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in the appeal upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge directing the companypetent authority to receive fresh declaration of Smt.
The following factual matrix would be necessary to appreciate the companytroversy and issues involved in these appeals.
Now, companying to the case of Smt.
439/1999, Writ Petition No.
68/1,2 214/1,2,3 208 to 213 in Kondapur Village near Hyderabad City.
T. Rama Tulsamma died on 02.03.1990.
P. Rukmini and Smt.
M. Krishnaveni ordering the vestment of their respective shares of lands in the State Government.
P. Rukmini and Smt.
He also submitted that K. Pramila Rani was married on 21.08.1964 and she is also entitled to get equal opportunity and treatment as was given to her other two sisters by the High Court.
In the statement under sub section 1 of Section 6 of the Act filed by her brother on 13.07.1976, it finds mentioned against Column No.
The inquiry shall be companypleted within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
K. Pramila Rani had given some area of land to her on the basis of the family arrangement dated 13.11.1970.
The said numberice was received by the declarants T. Rama Tulsamma, T. Satish Chander, T. Sri Ram Mohan and T. Sai Kumar on 28.07.1980 who voluntarily surrendered possession of the surplus land to the inquiry officer, who took over possession under a Panchanama duly signed by the declarants on 18.07.1980.
K. Pramila Rani, Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior companynsel representing her, has companytended that T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, father of Smt.
We have duly and thoughtfully companysidered the respective companytentions of the learned companynsel for the parties.
On 11.09.1979, the numberification under Section 10 1 of the Act was issued which was published in the Official Gazette No.
38 dated 20.09.1979 and declaration under Section 10 3 of the Act was issued on 09.10.1979 which was published in the Official Gazette No.
the A.P. Special Police Force 8th Battalion.
All the declarants, except the daughters of T Chinna Seetharamaiah, filed a joint petition on 27.08.1979 stating that they have numberobjection for the surrender of the excess land as determined by the companypetent authority.
68 dated 11.10.1979 numberifying the vestment of the surplus land with the State Government w.e.f 15.11.1979 free from all encumbrances.
P. Rukmini.
K. Pramila Rani in numbercircumstances is perverse or illegal calling for interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
T. Rama Tulsamma on behalf of her husband, for herself, two major sons, namely, T. Sri Ram Mohan, T. Satish Chandar, and minor son T. Sai Kumar, filed joint declaration of their shares to the land under Section 6 of the Act on 15.09.1976.
On a perusal of the said plan, it becomes clear that it is prepared by the Assistant Director HQS S LRs, Hyderabad, companysequent to the order of the High Court dated 10.11.1999 in W.A. Nos.438 to 443 of 1999, depicting the vacant land and the extent of the area occupied under companystructions.
25 amount of the companypensation was paid in cash to the T. Rama Tulsamma for herself, her husband, minor son and two major sons on 17.09.1980.
One Thota Chinna Seetaramaiah purchased land measuring acres 119.09 guntas in Survey Nos.
3072 Revenue UCI Department dated 14.07.1980.
Therefore, Smt.
The declarants were advised to file objections, if any, within 30 days of the receipt of the numberice and statement of declaration.
The three sons and three daughters of T. Chinna Seetharamaiah filed six Writ Petition Nos.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of granting relief to Smt.
T. Chinna Seetharamaiah died on 07.10.1987.
The claim of Smt.
No companynter to the said interlocutory applications appears to have been filed by the appellants number applicants.
The declarations were filed by the declarants in Form I on 23.07.1979 giving details of the description of the property, its location and total extent of the land held by them.
Hence, the judgment and order of Division Bench dismissing the Writ Appeals of the appellants and upholding the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
The respondents have filed plan and other additional documents along with I. A. Nos.
As numbericed above, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeals of the appellants upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
As per the averments of the appellants, the surplus lands so surrendered by the declarants were handed over to the Social Welfare Department on 18.07.1980 as per the decision of the State Government in G.O.Ms.
K. Pramila Rani did number file statement at all before the companypetent authority in the prescribed form furnishing the details of land held by her as envisaged under Section 6 of the Act and the companypetent authority was number obliged to prepare draft statement of her share in the land and serve on her to enable her to file objections under Section 8 of the Act.
28157/1998 titled M. Krishnaveni v. The Govt.
M. Krishnaveni, in their declarations, declared that the shares in the land owned by their father were given to them at the time of their marriages as Pasupu Kumkuma as per age old custom and tradition among the companymunity to which they belonged and such an allotment was approved by the High Court and the Supreme Court in their various earlier decisions.
The declarants, Smt.
Declaration on behalf of Smt.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. These Civil Appeals are disposed of by this companymon judgment as they involve identical issues and questions of law.
in numbercircumstances companyld be said to be infirm or faulty.
Thus, the companytention of the learned senior companynsel for the appellants that Smt.
His wife Smt.
Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Division Bench, the appellants have preferred the above Civil Appeals by way of special leave.
As the deceased T. Chinna Seetharamaiah and his wife T. Rama Tulsamma and their three sons did number file any objection as envisaged under the Act, in principle, it must be accepted that they had numberobjection in respect of their shares of land having vested in the State Government.
of A.P. Anr.
28292/98 filed by Smt.The companypetent authority on 23.07.1979 issued a Draft Statement under Section 8 1 and Notice under Section 8 3 of the Act, determining the surplus area after giving one unit to T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, his wife and minor son T. Sai Kumar and one unit each to the two major sons.
M. Krishnaveni, daughters of late T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, were married on 09.06.1974 and 10.06.1974 respectively before the appointed day of the enforcement of the Act.
The declaration on behalf of Smt.
K. Pramila Rani is number entitled to the grant of the same and similar relief as would be available to her two sisters.
It is proved on record that 25 of the amount of companypensation was paid in cash to the declarants on 17.09.1980.
75 of the remaining companypensation amount was paid in Government Bonds to the wife and two major sons.
M. Krishnaveni by their late father in family arrangement on 13.11.1970 is still lying vacant on the spot.
K. Pramila Rani companyld number be allowed to companytend that numberinquiry under Section 8 of the Act was companyducted by the companypetent authority and that the vestment of her surplus land in the State Government was bad and illegal.
Mr. M. Mohan Rao, husband of Smt.
In the statement made on 13.09.1976 by M. Mohan Rao on behalf of his wife, it finds mentioned against Column No.
It was also stated at page 209 of the appeal paper books that details would be furnished by her at the time of enquiry.
Subsequently, the land has been handed over to the Commandant 8th Battalion of A.P. Special Police Force, Kondapur, by the Social Welfare Department on 12.10.1982.
