2006 Supreme(SC) 723

2006(8) Supreme 286
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.—Appellants
versus
M. Krishnaveni & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5309-5314 of 2000
Decided on 11-8-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Anoop G. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Ms. Sameena Ahmed, Rahul Shukla, and T.V. George, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Rajendra Choudhary, Dholakia, U.U. Lalit, Sr. Advocates, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Hari Kumar G., Goodwill Indeevar and Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Advocates.

Headnote:Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976—Sections 8(4), 2(i), 4 to 11, 12, 13, 23, 34, 46—Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976—Rule 3—Vesting of excess land in State —Validity—Owner of land being mentally incapacitated, his wife on behalf of her husband, for herself, two major sons and one minor son filed joint declaration of their shares to the land u/s 6 of the Act—Declaration on behalf of his daughter Smt. ‘R’ was filed by her brother and on behalf of Smt. ‘K’ by her husband—No declaration was filed by or on behalf of ‘P’, eldest daughter whose marriage was performed in 1964—Declarants, two daughters, in their declarations, declared that 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—All the declarants except the daughters filed a joint petition stating that they have no objection for surrender of excess land as determined by the competent authority—Possession of surplus land surrendered to the inquiry officer, who took over possession—Award of compensation—Three sons and three daughters of original owner filed writ petitions challenging the final order of the competent authority under the Act claiming respective shares of married daughters as per family arrangement, seeking exemption—High Court directed reopening of the entire declarations on basis of claims made by respondents including claim of eldest married—Whether eldest daughter is entitled to grant of same and similar relief as would be available to her two sisters—(No)—Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Section 14(1).

       Held : The scheme 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.(Para 18)

       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.(Para 18)

       Smt. 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. (Para 19)

       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.(Para 20)

       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 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 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 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.(Paras 21 and 22)

       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. Consequently, 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.(Para 22)

       Admittedly, 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. (Para 23)