Supreme Court of India

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.versusM. KRISHNA VENI AND ORS.

Citation: 2006 INSC 507
Decided: 11 August 2006
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: AR LAKSHMANAN

Holding

The authority’s proceedings against the sons were lawful, but the proceedings against the two daughters who filed declarations were void and must be set aside, with an independent inquiry ordered; the third daughter is not entitled to relief.

Summary

The original owner of 119 acres filed a joint declaration under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for himself, his wife and three sons, while two daughters filed separate declarations claiming land allotted to them under a family "Pasupu Kumkuma" arrangement. The competent authority prepared a draft statement, allotted land only to the sons, declared the daughters ineligible, and later vested the surplus land in the State after the declarants voluntarily surrendered it and received compensation. The sons and daughters filed writ petitions challenging the vesting; the High Court ordered a reopening of the declarations. The Supreme Court held that the authority’s order against the sons was valid because they had voluntarily surrendered the excess land, but the authority’s failure to conduct a proper inquiry under the Act rendered the order against the two daughters who filed declarations invalid, quashing it and directing an independent inquiry. The third daughter, who never filed a declaration, was held not entitled to relief.

Issues considered

The validity of the competent authority’s order vesting surplus land in the State with respect to the sons who voluntarily surrendered the land.
Whether the two daughters who filed declarations are entitled to ownership under the Hindu Succession Act and whether the authority’s failure to conduct an inquiry under the Urban Land Act invalidates the vesting of their shares.
The entitlement of the third daughter, who did not file a declaration, to claim relief.
The applicability of estoppel or res judicata to the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956s. 14(1)
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976s. 10, s. 6, s. 8, s. 9

Subjects

Urban Land Ceiling ActSurplus land vestingFamily arrangementPasupu KumkumaHindu Succession ActEstoppelRes judicataCompensationDeclarationInquiry

Judgment

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. A
v.
M. KRISHNA VEN! AND ORS.

AUGUST 11, 2006

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA, JJ.) B

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-Sections 6, 8, 9 and
ID-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976-Rules, 3 and 5-
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 14(1)-Declaration filed by original C
owner, wife and three sons-Declarations also filed by two of the three
daughters claiming their share on the basis of a family arrangement which
were given to them at the tim;! of marriage as per custom-Draft statement
determining surplus land and a Notice issued to the declarants for objections-
Competent authority allotted lands to the sons only and not to the daughters
being not entitled to any share in the property-All declarants except the D
daughters gave no-objection for surrender of excess land-Final statement
and a Notification issued in Official Gazette notifYing the vestment of surplus
land with the State-Compensation paid to the sons-Writ Petitions by sons
and daughters challenging the order of the Competent authority claiming
shares for the daughters on the basis on the basis of a family arrangement- E
High Court directed the State to re-open the declarations-Correctness of-
Held, on facts, in the case of the sons, final order of the competent authority
is not arbitrary, perverse or illegal since they have voluntarily surrendered
their excess lands and accepted compensation-Daughters are entitled to
· hold property as full owner in their own name and hence the order of the
competent authority against them is quashed-Directions to the State to hold F
an independent enquiry on the declarations filed by them-Daughter, who
has not filed a declaration, cannot seek a similar relief as the remaining
daughters.

Original owner, who had three sons and three daughters, was owning
land measuring 119 acres. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, G
1976 came into force. Under the Act, the wife of the original owner filed a
joint declaration of their shares in the land on behalf of herself, the original
owner and three sons. Separate declarations were filed by the two daughters
stating that the shares in the land were given to them as per a family
495 H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A arrangement at the time of their marriages as per their age-old custom. No
declaration was filed by the third daughter. Competent Authority prepared a
Draft Statement and issued a Notice to the declarants calling for objections
determining s•irplus land. The Authority allotted one unit to the original
owner, his wife and minor son jointly and one unit each to two major sons.
B The daughters were held not entitled to any share in the property. A Final
Statement was issued under section 9 of the Act confirming the Draft
statement. A Notification acquiring excess land was issued and was published
in the Official Gazette. A declaration was issued stating the vestment of the
surplus land with the State free from all encumbrances. The State issued a
notice under section 10(5) of the Act directing the declarants to surrender
C the surplus lands. The declarants voluntarily surrendered possession of the
surplus lands and received compensation amount in cash and in the form of
Government Bonds.

The three sons and three daughters filed separate Writ Petitions before
High Court challenging the final order of the Competent authority by claiming
D respective shares of the married daughters on the basis of custom as per family
arrangement and seeking exemption under a State Notification. A Single
Judge of the High Court, by a common order, directed appellant-State to reopen
the entire declarations. The Writ Appeals filed by the State were dismissed
by the High Court.
E
In a1>peal to the Court, the appellant-State contended that the Final
statement and a Notification vesting of surplus lands with the State under the
Act were issued only after getting no-objection from the respondent and after
following various statutory proceedings under the Act; that the respondents
have received their compensation for surrender of the surplus land; that"the
F High Court was wrong in directing reopening of the concluded statutory
proceedings after nearly about two decades of attaining their finality; that
the respondents cannnot claim now by applying the principle of estoppel or
res judicata; and that the surplus land has already been allotted to a state
Unit which is presently in occupation.

G The respondents-sons contended that the order of the statutory authority
declaring the vestment of the surplus lands was invalid and illegal as no
inquiry as contemplated under section 8 of the Act was conducted before
preparing the Draft statement; that no Draft statement was ever served on
them in the manner prescribed under the Rules to the Act; and that the
H
GOVf. OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. KRISHNA VEN! 497
principle of estoppel or res judicata cannnot be applied since the order of the A
authority was without jurisdiction. The respondents-two daughters contended
that the family arrangement was valid and is a legal settlement under which
they are given lands by their father at the time of marriage under an age-old
custom conferring an absolute title of them to the property. The respondent-
third daughter contended that the direction of the High Court to receive fresh B
declaration from her is not perverse or illegal; that no enquiry under section
8 of the Act was conducted and hence the vestment of her surplus land in the
State was bad and illegal; and that she should also l;e given equal opportunity
and treatment as was given to her other two sisters.

Disposing of the Appeals, the Court c
HELD: 1.1. The scheme of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 envisages an inquiry buy the authority and thereafter decide the
objection raised by the contesting parties, i.e. it envisages application of mind
to the controversy raised. The objections under Section 8(3) of the Act were
invited but the respondents did not choose to file any objections and on the D
contrary they voluntarily surrendered the excess land to the State Government.
Since the declarants did not file any objection as envisaged under the Act, in
principle, it must be accepted that they had no objection in respect of their
shares of the land having vested in the State Government. They have voluntary
surrendered the excess land beyond the ceiling limit to the State Government E
free from all encumbrances, accepted the amount of compensation without
raising any objection or claim and also handed over the vacant and to the State
Government. The proceedings initiated and completed by the competent
authority could not be found to be arbitrary, perverse or illegal on the facts of
the case or in violation of the provisions of the Act andor Rules thereunder.
[505-C-E-F; 506-8-C] F
State of Orissa v. Lochan Nayak (Dead) by LRs., [2003] 10 SCC 678,
referred to.

1.2. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides that any
property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the G
commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not
as a limited owner. Both daughters had acquired an absolute right in the lands
given to them by their father in a family arrangement. They have made a
categorical statement in the declarations filed by them immediately after the
enforcement of the Act that they were the owners in possession of the lands
to the extent of their respective shares. The competent authority has not H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A considered the claim of the two declarants as no inquiry was conducted by the
authority nor any notice was issued to them inviting their objections before
final order concerning the vestment of land in excess of ceiling limit was
recorded. The Plan shows that the lands given to the two daughters by their
late father in a family arrangement is still lying vacant on the spot. As the
B competent authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law,
the High Court has rightly quashed the proceedings taken against the two
declarants ordering the vestment of their respective shares of lands in the
State Government. The appellants are directed to hold an independent inquiry
in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder into the
claims of the two declarants. (507-F-H; 508-A-G]
c
Sarupuri Narayanmma and Ors. v. Kadiyala Venkatasubbaiah and Ors.,
(1973] 1 SCC 801 and Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
and Ors., (1976J 3 SCC 119, referred to.

1.3. The respondent-third daughter did not file a statement before the
D competent authority furnishing the details of land held by her as envisaged
under Section 6 of the Act and the competent authority was not obliged to
prepare draft statement of her share in the land and serve on her to enable
her to file objections under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, the respondent
could not be allowed to contend that no inquiry under Section 8 of the Act was
E conducted by the competent authority and that the vestment of her surplus
land in the State Government was bad and illegal. The claim of the respondent
to afford an opportunity to her after about two decades from the date of the
vestment of her surplus land in the State Government could in no
circumstances be equated and treated at par with her two sisters, who had
filed their independent declarations immediately after the enforcement of the
F Act. (509-C-E(

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5309-5314 of
2000.

G From the Judgment dated 18.11.1999 of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. Nos. 438 to 443 of 1999

Anoop G. Chaudhary, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Sameena Ahmed,
Rahul Shukla and T.V. George for the Appellants.

H
GOVf. OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. KRISHNA VENI [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] 499

Rajendra Choudhary, S.K. Dholakia, U.U. Lalit, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, A
Bina Madhavan, Hari Kumar G., Goodwill lndeevar and Sumita Hazarika for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, J. These Civil Appeals disposed of by B
this common judgment as they involve identical issues and questions of law.
All the above appeals are filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its Special
Officer and Competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, against the common
final judgment and order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal C
Nos. 438, 439, 440, 441, 442 and 443 of 1999. The Writ Appeals before the High
Court arose out of six Writ Petitions filed by M. Krishnaveni, T. Satish
Chander, P. Rukmini, T. Sri Ram Mohan, T. Sai Kumar and K. Pramila Rani
respondents herein, wherein they challenged the order dated 23.7.1979 passsed
by the Special Officer and Competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, State of
Andhra Pradesh, appellant No.2 herein, under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land D
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ordering the vestment ofa portion of their
land in the State under the Act.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of all the writ
petitions by a common judgment and order dated 15.2.1999 directing the E
appellants herein to reopen the declarations of the sons and daughters of
Late Thota Chinna Seetharamaiah on the basis of the family settlement dated
13.11.1970.

Aggrieved by the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the
State preferred the above-said Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of the F
High Court. The Division Bench has dismissed the writ appeals and directed
the appeallants to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge
forthwith and till then, the land shown in the Map produced by the Assistant
Director (Survey and Land Records) in blue lines shall not be altered, alienated,
encumbered or disposed of by the allottee, viz., the A.P. Special Police Force G

-
8th Batta Iion.

Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the
Division Bench, the appellants hav·e preferred the above Civil Appeals by
way of special leave.
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The following factual matrix would be necessary to appreciate thee
controversy and issues involved in these appeals. One Thota Chinna
Seetaramaiah purchased land measuring acres 119.09 guntas in Survey Nos.
68/1,2; 214/1,2,3; 208 to 213 in Kondapur Village near Hyderabad City. He
performed the marriage of his eldest daughter, K. Pramila Rani, respondent
B herein on 21.8.1964. His two other daughters, namely, P. Rukmini and M.
Krishnaveni, respodents were married on 9.6.1974 and 10.6.1974 respectively.

The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act'] was passed by both the Houses of Parliament which came
into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh and other States. The Act is
C primarily intended to achieve the objectives to prevent the concentration or
urban property in the hands of few persons; to bring about socialization of
urban lands in urban agglomerations to subserve the common good by
ensuring its equitable distribution; to discourage construction of luxury
housing leading to conspicuous consumption of scarce building materials
and to ensure equitable distribution and utilization of such materials; and to
D secure orderly urbanization, etc. etc.

Section 2(i) of the Act defines a person as including an individual, a
family, a firm, a company, or an association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not. Section 4 of the Act deals with the ceiling limit in the
E case of every person. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act lay down an elaborate
procedure for determination of the extent of vacant land or the excess vacant
land, for the purpose of calculating the extent of vacant land held by a person,
the transfers made by him on or after 17.2.1975 but before the appointed day
by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise have to be taken into
consideration. If the person is a member of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF),
F his estimated share in the vacant land held by HUF, is the relevant factor for
deciding the extent of vacant land by the competent authority. Acquisition
of excess vacant land is provided in Sections 6 to 11. Every person holding
vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit is required to file a statement before
the competent authority in the prescribed form, which provides for furnishing
G details of every kind of land held by the person filing the statement (Section
6). On its basis, a draft statement is prepared and served on the person
concerned to enable him to file objections (Section 8). Objections when filed
are considered, disposed of and final statement with alterations consequent
on the decision of objections is prepared (Section 9). Then follows a notification
-
acquiring the excess vacant land by the concerned State Government [(Sectionn
H 10( I))]. All persons interested in such vacant land shall file their claims at this
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. KRISHNA VENI [LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA, J.] 50}

stage and their claims are determined, followed by a declaration vesting the A
property in the State free from all encumbrances w.e.f. a date specified in the
declaration [Section 10(2) and (3)]. Section 11 lays down the principle on
which the amount payable for such acquisition is deterimined. The amount
payable to any person shall in no case excceed rupees two lakhs [Sec. 11 (6).
It is ascertained on the basis of income by taking the net average annual
income for the preceding five years and multiplying it by 8-1/3. Where the B
vacant land does not yield any income the amount payable cannot exceed
rupees ten per sq. metre in respect of land in Category A or B annd rupees
five per sq. metre in respect of land in category C or D. The rate can be less,
determinable on a number of considerations mentioned in Section 11(3). A
decision of the competent authority on the matter of amount payable under C
Section 7 is appealable to an Urban Land Tribunal (Sec. 12). Second appeal
from the Tribunal order lies to the High Courrt (Section 13). Where nu appeal
lies or no appeal hs been filed, power of revision of the decisions of the
competent authority has been conferred on the State Government (Section
34).
D
The State Government has been given wide powers of allotment in
respect of excess vacant land deemed to be acquired under this Act, or under
any other law, to any person for any business, profession, trade, undertaking
or manufacture on any terms and conditions. It may also retain or reserve any
vacant land to be used for the benefit of the public. It may dispose of any E
such vacant land to subserve the common good (Section 23).

In exercise of the powers conffered by sub-section (I), read with sub-
rule (2) of Section 46 of the Act, the Central Government has framed the Rules,
called the 'Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976' (hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules"). Rule 3 deals with the filing of statement under F
Section 6 of the Act by a person holding excess lands within 212 days from
the commencement of the Act and such statement shall contain the particulars
specified in Form I (to be furnished in triplicate). Rule 5 prescribes particulars
to be contained in draft statement as regards vacant lands and manner of
service of the same. The draft statement shall be served, together with notice G
referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 8, on the holder of the vacant lands;
all other persons, so far as may be known, etc. as envisaged under sub-rule
2(a) of the Rules. The notification under sub-section(!) of Section 10 shall
be published for the information of the general public, in addition to the
publication to be made in the Official Gazette of the State concerned, also (a)
by affixing copies of the notification in a conspicuous place in the office of H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the competent authority and (b) by affixing copies of the notification in a•
conspicuous place in the office of the District Collector, Tehsildar and Municipal
Commissionerr with inn the local limits of whose jurisidction the vacant land
to which the notification relak!s is situated as per the procedure prescribed
under Rule 6.

B The case of the parties before the High Court was that as on 17 .02.1976,
T. Chinna Seetharamaiah was mentally incapacitated. His wife Smt. T. Rama
Tulsamma on behalf of her husband, for herself, two major sons, namely, T.
Sri Ram Mohan, T. Satish Chandar, and monor son T. Sai Kumar, filed joint
declaration of their shares to the land under Section 6 of the Act on 15.09.1976.
C Declaration on behalf of Smt. P. Rukmini was filed by her brother T. Sri Ram
Mohan and on behalf of Smt. Krishnaveni by her husband M. Mohan Rao.
No declaration was filed by or on behalf of K. Pramila Rani, the eldest
daughter of T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, whose marriage was performed on
28.01.1964. The declarants, Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaveni, in their
declarations, declared that the shares in the land owned by their father were
D given to them at the time of their marriage as 'Pasupu Kumkuma' as per age-
old custom and tradition among the community to which they belonged and
such an allotment was approved by the High Court and the Supreme Court
in their various earlier decisions. Under the scheme of the Act, T. Chinna
Seetharamaiah, his wife Smt. T. Rana Tulsamma, and their minor son, T. Sai
E Kumar, were together entitled to one unit whereas the two major sons, namely,
T. Satish Chandar and T. Sri Ram Mohan, were entitled to one unit each. The
declarations were filed by the declarants in Form I on 23.07.1979 giving details
of the description of the property, its location and total extent of the land held
by them. The competent authority on 23.07.1979 issued a Draft Statement
under Section 8(1) and Notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, determining the·
F surplus area after giving one unit to T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, his wife and
minor son T. Sai Kumar and one unit each to the two major sons. The
daughters were held not entitled to any share in the property. The declarants
were advised to file objections, if any, within 30 days of the notice and
statement of declaration. All the declarants, except the daughters of T Chinna
G Seetharamaiah, filed a joint petition on 27.08.1979 stating that they have no
objection for the surrender of the excess land as determined by the competent
authority. The final statement under Section 9 of the Act was issued confirming
the draft statement on 30.08.1979. On 11.09.1979, the notification under Section
I0( I) of the Act was issued which was published in the Official Gazette No.
38 dated 20.09.1979 and declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act was issued
H on 09.10.1979 which was published in the Official Gazette No. 68 dated
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. KRISHNA VEN! [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] 503

11.10.1979 notifying the vestment of the surplus land with the State Government A
w.e.f. 15.11.1979 free from all encumbrances.

On 23.11.1979, a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued
directing the declarants to surrender the surplus land within I0 days of the
receipt of the said notice. The said notice was received by the declarants T.
Rama Tulsamma, T. Satish Chander, T. Sri Ram Mohan and T. Sai Kumar on B
28.07.1980 who voluntarily surrendered possession of the surplus land to the
enquiry officer, who took over possession under a Panchanama duly signed
by the declarants on 18.07 .1980. As per the averrnents of the appellants, the
surplus lands so surrendered by th declarants were. handed over to the Social
Welfare Department on 18.07.1980 as per the decision of the State Government C
on G.O.Ms. No. 3072 (Revenue) (UCI) Department dated 14.07.1980.
Subsequently, the land has been handed over to the Commandant 8th Battalion
of A.P. Special Police Force, Kondapur, by the Social Welfare Department on
12.10.1982. Therefter, proceedings under Section 11 of the Act fixing the
compensation amount payable to the declarants were initiated on 28.07 .1980,
which were not seriously contested by the declarants. 25% amount of the D.
compensaton was paid in cash to the T. Rama Tulsamma for herself, her
husband, minor son and two major sons on 17.09.1980. The balance 75% of
the compensation amount was paid in Government Bonds to T. Rama
Tulsamma and the two major sons on 31.07 .1987. T. Chinna Seetharamaiah
died on 07.10.1987. Smt. T. Rama Tulsamma died on 02.03.1990. The three sons E
filed a joint statement furnishing the details regarding the retainable area by
them on 26.08.1990.

The !hree sons and three daughters of T. Chinna Seetharamaiah filed six
Writ Petition Nos. 28157, 28158, 28874, 28491, 28390 and 28292 of1998 before
the High Court of Juddicature, Andhra Pradesh challenging the final order of F
the competent authority under the Act claiming respective shares of the
married daughters on the basis of 'Pasupu Kumkuma' as per family arrangement
dated 13.11.1970 and seeking exemption under subsequent G.O. Ms. No. 733
Revenue (UCII) Department dated 31.10.1987.

The learned Single Judge, considering six points formulated in the
G
.,,.. judgment, directed reopening of the entire declarations on the basis of the
claims made by the ri:spondents including the claim of the eldest married
daughter Smt. K. Pramila Rani who had not filed the declaration under the Act
for getting her share in the land on the basis of family arrangement dated
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 13.11.1970. As noticed above, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the Writ Appeals of the appellants upholding the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge. Hence, the appellants have filed the above civil appeals
before theis Courrt challenging correctness and validity of the impugned
judgment.

B We have heard Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate for
the appellants and Mr. Rajendra Choudhary, Mr. S.K. Dholakia and Mr. Uday
U. Lalit, learned Senior Adovacates for the respondents.

Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently
C contended that on the appointed day of the Act, i.e. 17 .02.1976, all the
declarants, except K. Pramila Rani, the eldest daughter of T Chinna
Seetharamaiah, filed the declaration as per the provisionns of the Act claiming
their respective shares. The draft statement was published on 26.9.1979. No
objection to surrender the excess land had been raised by the declarants as
they voluntarily surrendered the excess land. The authority issued final
D statement under Section 9, which was published on 30.8.1979 and notification
under Section I0( I) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on
20.9.1979. As a sequel the~eof, the excess land had vested in the State free
from all encumbrances. The possession of the land surrendered by the
declarants was taken by the Revenue Department of the State on 18.7.1980
E and later on was handed over to the Social Welfare Department which, in turn,
allotted the lands to the A.P. Special Police Force, 8th Battalion, who is in
occupation of the allotted land. He also contended that the judgment and
order of the High Court, directing reopening of the long concluded statutory
proceedings after nearly about two decades of their finality, is erroneous, as
the declarants have waived tneir rights of challenging the proceedings after
F having received the amount of compensation. He further contended that the
Writ Petitions filed by the respondents after about two decades of the
finalization of th<: proceedings by the competent authority under the Act
ought not to have been entertained by the High Court. In support of this
submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Orissa
G v. Lochan Nayak (Dead) by LRs., [2003] IO sec 678.

Per contra, Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalff of the respondents-T. Satish Chandar, T. Sri Ram Mohan, T. Sai
Kumar, contended that the order of the authority declarinng the vestment of
the lands of the declarants was invalid and illegal as no inquiry as contemplated
H under Section 8 of the Act was conducted by the competent authority before
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH"· M. KRISHNA VEN! [LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,J.] 505

preparing the draft statement. No draft statement was ever served on the A
declarants in the manner as prescribed under the Rules, together with a notice
calling upon them to file objections to the draft statement. According to the
learned senior counsel, as the order of the authority is without jurisdiction
exercised in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules
framed thereunder, the principle of estoppel or res judicata, as contended by B
the learned senior counsel for the appellants, would not be applicable in the
facts and the circumstances of the present case.

We have duly and thoughtfully considered the respective contentions
of the learned counsel for the parties.

The scheme of the Act, as briefly noticed above, envisages an inquiry
c
by the authority and thereafter decide the objection raised by the contesting
parties, i.e. it envisages application of mind to the controversy raised. On
examination of the judgment and order of the High Court, it is not in dispute
that individual notice was not served on the declarants. A joint declaration
was submitted by the deceased late T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, his wife late T. D
Rama Tulsamma, and minor son T. Sai Kumar, claiming one unit for themselves
and one unit each to the two major sons. Afterr the submission of the
declaration, the competent authority further proceeded in the matter on the
basis of the statement filed under Section 6 of the Act and prepared the draft
statement in respect of those declarants as envisaged under Section 8 of the E
Act. The objections under Section 8(3) were invited, but T. Satish Chandar,
T. Sri Ram Mohan and T. Sai Kumar did not choose to file any objections and
on the contrary they voluntarily surrendered the excess land to the State
Government. On examination of the record of appeals, we find that T. Chinna
Seetharamaiah; his wife T. Rama Tulsamma and two sons T. Sri Ram Mohan
and T. Satish Chandar addressed a communication dated 27 .08.1979 (Annexure F
P-2) in reply to the notice under Section 8(3) of the Act, stating that they had
no objection to the excess land declared and they were prepared to surrender
the land under the provisions of the Act. The competent authority thereafter
passed the final order under Section 10 of the Act on 18.07.1980 acquiring the
excess land surrendered by the said declarants and directed them to surrender G
the possessionn of the land vested in the State Government. The land so
vested was thereafter allotted to the Social Welfare Department on 14.07.1980
itself which, in tum, was handed over to the Police Department for their use
and occupation. The authority then started proceedings under Section 11 of
the Act fixing the amount of compensation payable to T. Chinna Seetharamaiah,
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A his wife T. Rama Tulsamma, sons T. Sri Ram Mohan, T. Satish Chandar and
T. Sai Kumar. It is proved on record that 25% of the amount of compensation
was paid in cash to the declarants on 17.09.1980. 75% of the remaining
compensation amount was paid in Government Bonds to the wife and two
major sons. As the deceased T. Chinna Seetharamaiah and wife T. Rama
Tulsamma and their three sons did not file any objection as envisaged under
B the Act, in principle. it must be accepted that they had no objection in respect
of their shares of land having vested in the State Government. They have
voluntarily surrendered the excess land beyond the ceiling limit to the State
Government free from all encumbrances; accepted the amount of compensation
without raising any objection or claim and also handed over the vacant land
C to the State Government. The proceedings initiated and completed by the
competent authority could not be found to be arbitrary, perverse or illegal on
the facts of the case or in violation of the provisions of the Act and/or Rules
framed thereunder. The judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High
Court, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ
D Petition No. 28491/98 filed by T. Satish Chandar [Writ Appeal No. 439/1999],
Writ Petition No. 28390/98 filed by T. Sri Ram Mohan [Writ Appeal No. 441/
1991), Writ Petition No. 28874/98 filed by T. Sai Kumar (Writ Appeal No. 442/
1999] is not sustainable and shall stand set aside. The above writ petitions
of those petitioners are, accordingly, dismissed.

E Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaveni, daughters of late T. Chinna
Seetharamaiah, were married on 09.06.1974 and I0.06.1974 respectively before
the appointed day of the enforcement of the Act. As per the family arrangement
dated 13.11.1970, they were given some extent of lands at the time of their
marriage under the age-old custom of 'Pasupu Kumkuma' by their father T.
Chinna Seetharamaiah. The declaration on behalf of Smt. P. Rukinini was filed
F by her brother, T. Sri Ram Mohan, on 13.07.1976 declaring her share of the
land in Survey No. 208 gifted to her by her father at the time of her marriage.
In the statement under sub-section (I) of Section 6 of the Act filed by her
brother on 13.07.1976, it finds mentioned against Column No. 6 dealing with
the particular of the land which is desired to be retained and the land which
G is proposed to be surrendered that Smt. P. Rukmini was unable to make up
her mind with regard to the retention of the land by her and the land she
proposed to surrender. It was also stated at page 209 of the appeal paper
books that details would be furnished by her at the time of enquiry. Mr. M.
Mohan Rao, husband of Smt. M. Krishnaveni-declarant, filed a statement
under sub-Section (I) of Section 6 in Form I on her behalf claiming share of
H land in Survey No. 209 as per the family arrangement made on 13.11.1970 by -·
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. KRISHNA VENI [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,J.] 507

the father ofSmt. M. Krishnaveni. In the statement made on 13.09.1976 by M. A
Mohann Rao on behalf of his wife, it finds mentioned against Column No. 16.
"Smt. Krishnaveni was unable to make up her mind at that time to furnish the
particulars of land which was desired to be retained and the land which was
proposed to be surrendered by her and the details would be furnished at the
time of enquiry to be conducted by the competent authority in terms of the B
provisions of the Act."

Mr. Rajendra Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaveni, contended that the family arrangement
dated 13.11.1970 was valid and legal settlement by which some land was given
by the father to his daughters at the time of their marriages under age-old C
custom known as 'Pasupu Kumkuma' conferring an absolute title of the
daughters to the property. In Sarupuri Narayanamma and Ors. v. Kadiyala
Venkatasubhaiah and Ors., [1973) 1 SCC 80 I, this Court has given the
meaning to the word 'Pasupu Kumkuma' to mean 'conferring an absolute title
in the property'. It is well-settled that a document, whichh is in the nature of
a memorandum of family arrangement and which is filed before the Court for D
its information for mutation of names, is not compulsorily registrable and,
therefore, can be used in the evidence of the family arrangement and is final
and binding on the parties [see Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and Ors., (1976] 3 SCC 119]. Further, it was held in the cited
decision that the object of the family arrangement is to protect the family from E
long-drawn litigation or perpetual strifes, which mar the unity and solidarity
of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members
of the family. It promotes social justice through wider distribution of wealth.
Family, therefore, has to be construed widely. It is not confined only to people
having legal title to the property.
F
Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides that any
property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not
as a limited owner. Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaveni, both daughters
of late T Chinna Seetharamaiah, had acquired an absolute right in the lands G
given to them by their father in the family arrangement on 13.11.1970. They
have made categorical statement in the declaration filed by them in the year
1976 immediately after the enforcement of the Act that they were the owners
in possession of the lands to the extent of their respective shares. It is not
in dispute that the competent authority has not considered the claim of the
two declarants as no inquiry was conducted by the authority nor any notice H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A was issued to them inviting their objections before final order concerning the
vestment of land in excess of ceiling limit was recorded.

The respondents have filed plan and other additional documents along
with I.A. Nos. 31-36/2006. No counter to the said interlocutory applications
appears to have been filed by the appellants-non-applicants. On a persual of
B the said plan, it becomes clear that it is prepared by the Assistant Director
(HQS) S & LRs, Hyderabad, consequent to the order of the High Court dated
10.11.1999 in W.A. Nos. 438 to 443 of 1999, depicting the vacant land and the
extent of the area occupied under constructions. The Plan would show that
an area to the extent of Ac 41-03 Gts. Shown in blue colour is lying vacant
C on the spot. The Plan is signed by one G.P. for % Advocate General on
17.11.1999. It also reveals that an a read of Sy. No. 208 and Sy. No. 209 given
to Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt. M: Krishnaveni by their later father in family
arrangement on 13.11.1970 is still lying vacant on the spot. Thus, the contention
of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt.
M. Krishnaveni, for the first time, have raised the claim of their shares to the
D land on the basis of the alleged family settlement in the writ petitions filed
by them, does not merit acceptance. Both these declarants had filed their
declarations in the year 1976 immediately after enforcement of the Act and it
was mandatory obligation and duty in law of the competent authority to.have
held inquiry in the matter and considered their obejctions, if any. As the
E competent authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law,
in our view, therefore, the proceedings taken against the declarants Smt. P.
Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaveni ordering the vestment of their respective
shares of lands in the State Government. Hence, the judgment and order of
Division Bench dismissing the Writ Appeals of the appellants and upholding
the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 28157 /1998 titled M
F Krishnaveni v. The Govt. of A.P. and Anr., and Writ Petition No. 258157/98
titled P. Rukmini v. The Govt. of A.P. and Anr. in no cirrcumstances could be
said to be infirm or faulty. Consequently, C.A. Nos. 5309 and 5311 of2000 filed
by the appellants against Smt. M. Krishnaveni and Smt. P. Rukmini respectively
shall stand dismissed. The appellants are directed to hold an independent
G inquiry in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder into
the claims of the declarants Smt. M. Krishnaveni a:id Smt. P. Rukmini. The
inquiry shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of this
order.

Now, coming to the case of Smt. K. Pramila Rani, Mr. Uday U. Lalit,
H learned senior counsel representing her, has contended that T. Chinna
GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M. KRISHNA VEN! [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] 509

Seetharamaiah, father of Smt. K. Pramila Rani had given some area of land to A
her on the basis of the family arrangement dated 13.11.1970. According to the
learned senior counsel, the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the
High Court impugned in the appeal upholding the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge directing the competent authority to receive fresh
declaration of Smt. K. Pramila Rani in no circu.mstances is perverse or illegal B
calling for interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution oflndia. He also submitted that K. Pram ila Rani
was married on 21.08.1964 and she is also entitled to get equal opportunity
and treatment as was given to her other two sisters by the High Court. We
are not persuaded to accept the submissions of the learned senior counsel
on the ground of parity or equality principle. Admittedly, Smt. K. Pramila Rani C
did not file statement at all before the competent authority in the prescribed
form furnshing the details of land held by her as envisaged under Section 6
of the Act and the competent authority was not obliged to prepare draft
statement of her share in the land and serve on her to enable her to file
objections under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, Smt. K. Pramila Rani could
not be allowed to contend that no inquiry under Section 8 of the Act was D
conducted by the comptent authority and that the vestment of her surplus
land in the State Government was bad and illegal. The claim of Smt. K. Pramila
Rani to afford an opportunity to her after about two decades from the date
of the vestment of her surplus land in the State Government, could in no
circumstances be equated and treated at par with her two sisters, who had E
filed their independent declarations immediately after the enforcement of the
Act, requesting the competent authority to hold an inquiry as per the law
regarding their ownership of lands which they received from their father in
family arrangement dated 13 .11.1970, i.e. much before the Act came into force.
In. these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; Smt. K. Pramila Rani
is not entitled to the grant of the same and similar relief as would be available F
to her two sisters.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and order of the Divis'ion
Bench of the High Court, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge to
the extent of granting relief to Smt. K. Pramila Rani, is not sustainable and it G
is accordingly set aside. Consequently, W.P. No. 28292/98 filed by Smt. K.
Pramila Rani shall stand dismissed.

In the result, Civil Appeal Nos. 5309 and 5311 of 2000 filed by the
appellants against Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaverri are dismissed.
The other appeals filed by the appellants against the respondents T. Satishh H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Chandar, T. Sri Ram Mohan and T. Sai Kumar are, accordingly, allowed.
Resultantly, the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents-petitioners other than
Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaveni are dismissed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

B.S. Appeals disposed of.
B

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Urban Land Ceiling Act"Sign in to search