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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf