Skip to main content

Govt can seize properties that have no heirs, beneficiaries: Bombay HC

At a time when land is at a premium in Mumbai and land-grabbing a common occurrence, the Bombay HC, in an order, has ruled that the state government can take over land if a property does not have any legal heirs or beneficiaries.

Forty-four years after a man died without any heirs, leaving behind a 5,143-sq m plot in Ghatkopar, the HC directed that the state be included as a party in the land dispute. In 1944, Kashinath Sawant bought the Ghatkopar land. He died in 1969 without any heirs. Neelkanth housing society said it was the owner as the developer who constructed the building had purchased the plot. Bhuwaneshwar Tripathi has staked claim saying he was a tenant in the chawl on the land.

"If the trial court finds that the property's last known lawful owner has not left any legal heir, descendant, rightful nominee or beneficiary, it would vest in the state government," said Justice A P Bhangale. "In the case in hand, if the trial court finds it necessary to apply doctrine of escheat, it has to be applied-to order forfeiture of all property (including bank accounts) to the state treasury if it appears certain that there are no rightful heirs, descendants or named beneficiaries," the court said.

It said land-grabbing was a major concern for orphaned properties and sometimes happens due to connivance of government officials. "Any person seeking to grab land and unlawfully taking disadvantage of want of legal heir of the property's last-known owner shall never be encouraged. Land grabbing may succeed because sometimes corrupt or negligent self-serving elements intermingle in the government machinery may be responsible in encouraging nominal money payments towards revenue arrears and obtaining of written receipts by an unauthorized person to help the unlawful cause of land grabbing and tax dodging,'' added the judge.

The HC asked the trial court to ensure that the matter be taken to its logical conclusions as litigants sometimes known to exploit loopholes in the system. "It is often experienced in such cases that either of the parties may upon some pretext or the other, that is a some sort of settlement outside the court, try to withdraw from the case .... or to avoid the court or remain absent from the court finding that a serious issue is being tried that may have drastic consequences," said the court.

Article referred:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Govt-can-seize-properties-that-have-no-heirs-beneficiaries-HC/articleshow/23188640.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.