- (1.)First respondent filed the suit for a declaration that the sale proceedings of the land in S.Nos.62, 63, 450, 451 and 334 and the house situated therein at Juntapally village (hereinafter referred to suit property) for recovery of arrears of the excise dues from her father are null and void and are not binding on her, and for a consequential injunction restraining respondents 2 to 4 and the appellant from dispossessing her from the suit property which was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the third defendant in the suit preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, I would hereinafter refer the parties to the appeal as they are arrayed in the trial Court.
(2.)Plaintiff (1st respondent) instituted the suit initially against the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Collector (Excise) Hyderabad District (first defendant) and the Tahasildar Tandur (second defendant). Subsequently she filed I.A.No.489 of 1974 to add the appellant as third defendant in the suit which was allowed vide order dated 23-7-1974. Later K. Lakshmamma (fourth respondent) was added as the fourth defendant, vide order in I.A.No.396 of 1978 dated 7-3-1979. After the death of the fourth defendant, defendants 5 and 6 (respondents 5 and 6) were brought on record as her legal heirs as per the order dated 10-6-1980 in I.A.No.850 of 1979 and later Anantaiah (seventh respondent) was added as seventh defendant as per the order in I.A.No.29 of 1981.
(3.)Tirumala Reddy, father of plaintiff, entered into a contract with the erstwhile Hyderabad State to supply 600 Khandies of Gulmoha flowers at Rs.21/- (O.S.) per Khandi, and failed to supply the contracted quantity. So the Excise Commissioner levied a penalty of Rs.80/- per Khandi, on the father of the plaintiff, based on which the first defendant claimed an amount of Rs.19,866-2-0 from him and put the plaint schedule property to auction, whereat the third defendant figured as the highest bidder on 16-5-1962 and the sale was knocked down in his favour. So father of the plaintiff filed W.P.No.554 of 1962 seeking a writ of prohibition against defendants 1 and 2 from concluding the auction in favour of the third defendant in respect of the suit property inter alia contending that inasmuch as Gulbarga District, in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, where the supply of Gulmoha flower Khandies was to be made by him, stood transferred to Mysore State under the States Reorganization Act and so it is the Government of Mysore only, but not the first defendant (State of Andhra Pradesh), that can claim the amount from him and in any event since the first defendant vide G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 2-2-1958 Revenue (T) Department, had written off all the arrears or penalty of excise contractors accrued up to 1-11-1958, and as the auction was held 'without observing the required formalities', defendants 1 and 2 and the excise officials may be prohibited from concluding the auction held on 16-5-1962. As her father died during the pendency of that writ petition plaintiff brought herself on record as his legal representative in that writ petition which was disposed of accepting the suggestion of the Government Pleader that first defendant can proceed with collection of the amount demanded, and in the event of the writ petitioner succeeding in the attempts with the Government of Mysore in having the claim for penalty written off, first defendant has to refund the amount to the writ petitioner, without the necessity of the writ petitioner filing a suit for recovery of the amount collected. Alleging that the claim made to the Government of Mysore is pending, plaintiff filed W.P.No.1307 of 1967, questioning the sale in favour of third defendant inter alia contending that as the third defendant, who participated in the auction through his father, who also is a defaulter, deposited the 1/4th amount on 17-5-1962, when it has to be deposited on 16-5-1962 itself, and failed to deposit the balance of 3/4th amount within a period of 30 days, and as the sale was held without obtaining permission of the Tahsildar under Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Hyderabad Tenancy Act). The writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 29-12-1967, holding that permission under Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act is not necessary. Thereafter plaintiff preferred a revision to the first defendant, which was rejected on 15-12-1971, and so she filed W.P.No.6 of 1972 questioning the legality of the order of the first defendant rejecting the revision, which was dismissed as infructuous on 16-7-1973. Thereafter plaintiff filed the suit contending that in view of the grounds mentioned by her in the writ petition and as the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Ordinance, 1972 (Ordinance), which later became Act (the Act) prohibit sale of any land as mentioned therein, the sale held in favour of the third defendant in any event is null and void.