Skip to main content

Can't proceed against the dead: Andhra HC to revenue wing

Justice AV Sesha Sai of the AP high court on Wednesday held that proceedings against a dead person are invalid and hence cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. He made this order while allowing a petition by city advocate R C Misra and set aside the proceedings launched by the Ranga Reddy district revenue authorities in the name of Erram Mallaiah in 2006 under sections 6 to 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. Mallaiah had died long before that.

The revenue wing's action in declaring Mallaiah as a holder of surplus land and initiating relevant proceedings against him after his death was invalid in the eyes of law, the judge said. Moreover, the authorities took up this exercise in the absence of the family members or legal representatives of Mallaiah, he said.

Petitioner Misra told the court that he had purchased a piece of land in Guttala Begumpet village in RR district in 1998. However, revenue authorities issued proceedings against the original owner in order to take possession of the 2.31 acres declaring it as surplus land on the grounds that the owner had failed to submit a declaration under the Land Ceiling Act.

The revenue department contended that the surplus land needs to be vested with the state and as the owner had sold the property after the Land Ceiling Act came into effect, he should have adhered to the Act. "We took possession of the land in 2008 only after due inquiry," the counsel for the state said.

After hearing both the parties, Justice Sesha Sai found that an enquiry conducted by the special officer under the land ceiling Act

had revealed that the original owner had died long ago. The judge then ruled that "in the present case, in spite of the report of the special enquiry officer informing the death of the original pattadar, the authorities, instead of restraining themselves from proceeding further, issued further proceedings and hence such orders cannot sustain for the judicial scrutiny."

Article referred:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Cant-proceed-against-the-dead-HC-to-revenue-wing/articleshow/28567445.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil