D.R.SOMAYAJULU, SECRETARY Vs. ATTILI APPALA SWAMY
LAWS(SC)-2014-11-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
November 19,2014
D.R.Somayajulu, Secretary
Appellant
VERSUS
Attili Appala Swamy
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MAHARAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]STATE OF U.P. VS. HARI RAM [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
HABIB MUSTAFA (SINCE DEAD) AND ORS VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-8-156] [REFERRED]KOMAL KEWAT VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-211] [REFERRED TO]
DATTATREY RAO KALE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-2-171] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
SHREENATH INDUSTRIES VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-232] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH ARORA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-9-76] [REFERRED TO]
NIHAR BHOWMIK VS. BHABANANDA BHOWMIK [LAWS(TRIP)-2023-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAJENDRA AGARWAL AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. [LAWS(APH)-2016-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAJENDRA AGARWAL AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. [LAWS(APH)-2016-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYAKUMAR VS. SANTHAKUMARI [LAWS(KER)-2020-3-334] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD PATEL VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-68] [REFERRED TO]
MR. ANKIT PRAHLADKA VS. M/S. PARIMALA MERCANTITLE PVT. LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
GAYATRI DEVI & OTHERS VS. STATE OF M P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2016-8-165] [REFERRED]
ALLAUDDIN VS. SAYRA BI AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER VS. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-325] [REFERRED TO]
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD VS. RAVINDRA DHANKAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-130] [REFERRED TO]
DEBJANI SENGUPTA VS. INSTITUTE OF COST ACCOUNTANTS [LAWS(CAL)-2023-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
EVA SETH VS. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(CAL)-2023-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
PARTHA PRATIM HAZRA & ANR VS. GITA LAW & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-108] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Delay condoned in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9648/2013. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
(2.)These appeals challenge the correctness of order of Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in review application being W.P.M.P.No.1540/2009 in Writ Appeal No.1840/2008 dated 30.4.2011, setting aside the order dated 5.1.1982 passed by the competent authority determining an extent of 38,781 sq. mtrs. of late Attilli Narasayyamma as surplus land and also the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24.4.2001 on the ground that the proceedings taken against the dead person are totally void ab initio and non-est.
(3.)The case has a chequered history. A maze of facts and events confront us in the course of determination of these appeals. Essentially, the core questions required to be examined are:-
(i) The effect of non-impleading of legal heirs of Attili Narasayyamma on the final statement passed under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ULCR Act) and vesting of surplus land in the Government;
(ii) Effect of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (for short 'Repeal Act 1999') on the land so vested:-
(a) to an extent of 6.00 acres of land vested with the State Government which is allotted to the appellant-society as the society has entered into an agreement of sale with the owners of the land and claims to be in possession of 6.00 acres;
(b) effect of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 on the remaining extent of surplus land.
(2.)These appeals challenge the correctness of order of Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in review application being W.P.M.P.No.1540/2009 in Writ Appeal No.1840/2008 dated 30.4.2011, setting aside the order dated 5.1.1982 passed by the competent authority determining an extent of 38,781 sq. mtrs. of late Attilli Narasayyamma as surplus land and also the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24.4.2001 on the ground that the proceedings taken against the dead person are totally void ab initio and non-est.
(3.)The case has a chequered history. A maze of facts and events confront us in the course of determination of these appeals. Essentially, the core questions required to be examined are:-
(i) The effect of non-impleading of legal heirs of Attili Narasayyamma on the final statement passed under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ULCR Act) and vesting of surplus land in the Government;
(ii) Effect of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (for short 'Repeal Act 1999') on the land so vested:-
(a) to an extent of 6.00 acres of land vested with the State Government which is allotted to the appellant-society as the society has entered into an agreement of sale with the owners of the land and claims to be in possession of 6.00 acres;
(b) effect of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 on the remaining extent of surplus land.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.