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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...