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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

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.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.