Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors Vs. M. Krishnaveni & Ors  Insc
490 (11 August 2006)
Ar. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
Civil Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as they involve identical
issues and questions of law.
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 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 passed 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 (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 ordering the vestment of a portion of their land in the State under 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 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.
by the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the State preferred the
above-said Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The
Division Bench has dismissed the writ appeals and directed the appellants 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 8th Battalion.
dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Division Bench, the
appellants have preferred the above Civil Appeals by way of special leave.
following factual matrix would be necessary to appreciate the 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 herein on 21.8.1964. His two other daughters,
namely, P. Rukmini and M. Krishnaveni, respondents were married on 9.6.1974 and
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 primarily intended to achieve the objectives to prevent the
concentration of 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
secure orderly urbanization, etc. etc.
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 case of every
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), 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 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).
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 [(Section 10(1)]. All persons interested in such vacant land shall
file their claims at this stage and their claims are determined, followed by a
declaration vesting the 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 principles on which the amount payable for such acquisition is
determined. The amount payable to any person shall in no case exceed 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 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 and
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
Section 7 is appealable to an Urban Land Tribunal (Sec. 12). Second appeal from
the Tribunal order lies to the High Court (Section 13). Where no appeal lies or
no appeal has been filed, power of revision of the decisions of the competent
authority has been conferred on the State Government (Section 34).
State Government has been given very 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
such vacant land to subserve the common good (Section 23).
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), 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
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
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 (1) 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
copies of the notification in a conspicuous place in the office of the
Competent authority and
copies of the notification in a conspicuous place in the office of the District
Collector, Tehsildar and Municipal Commissioner within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the vacant land to which the notification relates is
situated as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 6.
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 minor son T. Sai Kumar, filed joint declaration of their shares to the land
under Section 6 of the Act on 15.09.1976. Declaration on behalf of Smt. P. Rukmini
was filed by her brother T. Sri Ram Mohan and on behalf of Smt. M. Krishnaveni
by her husband M. Mohan Rao.
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 given to them at the time of
their marriages 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. Rama Tulsamma, and
their minor son, T. Sai 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 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 receipt of the
notice and statement of declaration. All the declarants, except the daughters
of T Chinna 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 10(1) 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 on 09.10.1979 which was published in the Official
Gazette No. 68 dated 11.10.1979 notifying the vestment of the surplus land with
the State Government w.e.f 15.11.1979 free from all encumbrances.
23.11.1979, a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued directing the declarants
to surrender the surplus land within 10 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 28.07.1980 who voluntarily surrendered
possession of the surplus land to the inquiry officer, who took over possession
under a Panchanama duly signed by the declarants on 18.07.1980. As per the
averments of the appellants, the surplus lands so surrendered by the declarants
were handed over to the Social Welfare Department on 18.07.1980 as per the
decision of the State Government in 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. Thereafter, 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 compensation 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 filed a joint statement
furnishing the details regarding the retainable area by them on 26.08.1990.
three sons and three daughters of T. Chinna Seetharamaiah filed six Writ
Petition Nos. 28157, 28158, 28874, 28491, 28390 and 28292 of 1998 before the
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh challenging the final order of 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.
learned Single Judge, considering six points formulated in the judgment,
directed reopening of the entire declarations on the basis of the claims made by
the respondents 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 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 this Court challenging
correctness and validity of the impugned judgment.
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 Advocates for the respondents.
Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently 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, filled the declaration as
per the provisions 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 statement under Section 9, which was published
on 30.8.1979 and notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was published in
the Official Gazette on 20.9.1979. As a sequel thereof, 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 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 their rights of
challenging the proceedings after 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 the 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 v. Lochan Nayak (Dead) by LRs.
[(2003) 10 SCC 678].
contra, Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents - T. Satish Chandar, T. Sri Ram Mohan, T. Sai Kumar, contended that
the order of the authority declaring the vestment of the lands of the declarants
was invalid and illegal as no inquiry as contemplated under Section 8 of the
Act was conducted by the competent authority before preparing the draft
statement. No draft statement was ever served on the declarants in the manner
as prescribed under the Rules, together with a notice calling upon them to file
objections to the draft statement.
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 the learned senior counsel for the appellants, would not be
applicable in the facts and the circumstances of the present case.
have duly and thoughtfully considered the respective contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties.
of the Act, as briefly noticed above, envisages an inquiry 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. Rama Tulsamma, and
minor son T. Sai Kumar, claiming one unit for themselves and one unit each to
the two major sons. After 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 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 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 the possession 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 turn, 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, 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 his wife T. Rama Tulsamma and their three sons 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 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 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 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. 441/1999], 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.
P. Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaveni, daughters of late T. Chinna Seetharamaiah,
were married on 09.06.1974 and 10.06.1974 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 marriages under the
age-old custom of 'Pasupu Kumkuma' by their father T. Chinna Seetharamaiah. The
declaration on behalf of Smt. P. Rukmini was filed 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 (1) of Section 6 of the Act filed by her brother on 13.07.1976, it
finds mentioned against Column No. 16 dealing with the particulars of the land
which is desired to be retained and the land which 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 (1) of Section 6 in Form I on
her behalf claiming share of land in Survey No.209 as per the family
arrangement made on 13.11.1970 by the father of Smt. M. Krishnaveni. In the
statement made on 13.09.1976 by M. Mohan 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 provisions of the Act".
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 custom known as 'Pasupu Kumkuma'
conferring an absolute title of the daughters to the property.
Narayanamma & Ors. v. Kadiyala Venkatasubbaiah & Ors. [(1973) 1 SCC
801], 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, which is in the nature of a memorandum of family arrangement and
which is filed before the Court for 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 & Ors.
v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & 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 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.
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 given to them by their father in the
family arrangement on 13.11.1970. They have made categorical statement in the
declarations 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 was issued to them inviting their objections
before final order concerning the vestment of land in excess of ceiling limit
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 perusal of 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 on the spot. The Plan is signed by one G.P. for o/o Advocate
General on 17.11.1999. It also reveals that an area of Sy. No. 208 and Sy. No.
209 given to Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaveni by their late father in
family arrangement on 13.11.1970 is still lying vacant on the spot.
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 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 objections, if any. As
the competent authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by
law, in our view, therefore, the learned Judges of the High Court have rightly
quashed 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. Krishnaveni v. The Govt.
of A.P. & Anr. and Writ Petition No.28157/98 titled P. Rukmini v. The Govt.
of A.P. & Anr. in no circumstances could be said to be infirm or faulty.
C. A. Nos. 5309 and 5311 of 2000 filed by the appellants against Smt. M. Krishnaveni
and Smt. P. Rukmini respectively shall stand dismissed. 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 declarants Smt. M. Krishnaveni
and Smt. P. Rukmini. The inquiry shall be completed within two months from the
date of receipt of this order.
coming to the case of Smt. K. Pramila Rani, Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior
counsel representing her, has contended that T. Chinna Seetharamaiah, father of
Smt. K. Pramila Rani had given some area of land to 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 circumstances is perverse or illegal calling for interference by this Court
in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
He also submitted that K. Pramila 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.
Smt. K. Pramila Rani did not file statement at all before the competent
authority in the prescribed form 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, Smt. K. Pramila
Rani could not be allowed to contend that no inquiry under Section 8 of the Act
was conducted by the competent 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 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 to
her two sisters.
the foregoing reasons, the judgment and order of the Division 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 is
accordingly set aside.
W. P. No. 28292/98 filed by Smt. K. Pramila Rani shall stand dismissed.
result, Civil Appeal Nos. 5309 and 5311 of 2000 filed by the appellants against
Smt. P. Rukmini and Smt. M. Krishnaveni are dismissed. The other appeals filed
by the appellants against the respondents T. Satish Chandar, T. Sri Ram Mohan
and T. Sai Kumar are, accordingly, allowed.
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.