IMPORTANT POINTS
Entire provisions of CPC are not made applicable to the ULCR Act.
Review petition cannot be allowed on the basis of a plea which has been raised and rejected at all stages of the proceeding.

Headnote:(a) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 – Sections 6(1) and 8(3) – If a person dies after filing his statement u/s 6(1) but before issue of draft statement u/s 8(1) along with notice u/s 8(3) – His legal representatives are to be impleaded and objections received from them is to be duly considered – Instantly, the legal representatives throughout participating in the proceedings – They cannot challenge the proceedings on ground of non-impleadment. (Para 13, 14, 17)
       (b) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 – Section 31(f) – Applicability of provisions of CPC may be prescribe – Thus, by implication, entire provisions of CPC are not made applicable to the Act – When legal representatives are already on record in their individual capacity, a mere note under Order XXII Rule 2 C.P.C. is sufficient. (Para 18, 19)
       (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Review – Grounds for – Plea of non-impleadment raised at all stages, before appellate authority as well as before the single Judge and also in the writ appeal – Plea rejected at all stages in view of participation of the legal representatives – a High Court allowing review petition on same plea and settings its own order – Not permissible – Allowing review petition also on ground of repeal of the Act by a passing observation without anything more – Not permissible. (Para 21)
       (d) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 – Section 10(3) and 10(5) – Notification u/s 10(3) published on 22.10.1990 – Notice u/s 10(5) issued on 31.1.1991 to surrender possession of vacant lands – Thus vesting had become conclusive. (Para 23)
       (e) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 – Section 3(1) – Piece of land measuring 6.00 acres – Different agreements between the society and respondents and also GO.Ms.No.1900 dated 20.12.2006 – Possession handed over to society before repeal of ULCR Act – Government regularizing allotment of land to Society after paying requisite amount towards compensation for such allotment – Repeal Act no applicable. (Para 33)
       (2013) 4 SCC 280 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant-society entered into an agreement of sale with the grandmother of the first respondent, Attili Narasayyamma on 25.8.1974 in respect of property measuring 6.00 acres in S.No. 30/1 and 30/2 of Kapparada Village, Visakhapatnam for the purpose of providing housing plots to its members. Sale consideration of Rs.1,52,000/-was received by Attili Narasayyamma and possession of the land was handed over to the appellant-society.
       Meanwhile, in pursuance of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, the competent authority sought to take the surplus land holdings. Attili Narasayyamma filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULCR Act. Sons, daughters and grandchildren have also filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULCR Act on the basis of family arrangement. After due enquiry, the competent authority issued draft statement under Section 8(1), together with notice under Section 8(3) of the ULCR Act provisionally determining Attili Narasayyamma as a surplus landholder to the extent of 38781 sq.mtrs. in S. Nos.29/1, 30/1, 30/2 and 30/3 of Kapparada Village.
       In response to the notice issued under Section 8(3) of the ULCR Act, all the declarants including the first respondent herein filed identical objections, except late Attili Narasayyamma.
       The competent authority passed the order dated 5.1.1982 finding Attili Narasayyamma to be holder of surplus land to the extent of 38781 sq.mtrs.
       Challenging the said order, Attili Narasayyamma filed an appeal. In the meantime, final statement under Section 9 of the ULCR Act had been issued. Notification under Section 10(1) and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULCR Act were issued and they were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette.
       The Appellate Authority–Chief Commissioner of Land Administration rejected the contention of the first respondent that legal heirs of Attili Narasayyamma were not formally impleaded in the proceedings before the competent authority and dismissed the appeal.
       Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, Attili Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy and Attili Viswanadha Rao filed Writ Petition No. 18340/2001. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn against second petitioner-Attili Viswanadha Rao. During pendency of the writ petition, Attili Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy died and first respondent herein was brought on record as the legal representative of deceased Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy. The said writ petition was subsequently dismissed by the High Court on 6.11.2008 on the ground that the non-service of notice upon the legal representatives caused no prejudice as they all had the opportunity of putting forth their objections on behalf of Attili Narasayyamma and they had participated in the proceedings throughout.
       Aggrieved by the said order, first respondent preferred writ appeal which was dismissed.
       The High Court allowed the review petition mainly on the ground that there was no proper representation of the estate of the deceased Attili Narasayyamma before the competent authority and any proceedings taken against a dead person are totally void ab initio and non-est.
       Essentially, the core questions required to be examined in this case 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 and vesting of surplus land in the Government;
       (ii) Effect of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) 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.

       Finding of the Court:
       The ULCR repeal Act is not applicable to the land allotted to the society.
       The effect of the Repeal Act as regards the balance land should better be examined by the High Court.
       Result:
       Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

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.

4. Despite the limited scope of the dispute which arises for our consideration, it is essential for us to notice the factual background of the dispute between the parties. The appellant-society entered into an agreement of sale with the grandmother of the first respondent, Attili Narasayyamma on 25.8.1974 in respect of property measuring 6.00 acres in S.No. 30/1 and 30/2 of Kapparada Village, Visakhapatnam for the purpose of providing housing plots to its members. Sale consideration of Rs.1,52,000/-was received by Attili Narasayyamma and possession of the land was handed over to the appellant-society. The appellant-society had also entered into other Memorandum of Understanding/Agreements of Sale on various dates, details of which would be referred at the relevant place. Meanwhile, in pursuance of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, the competent authority sought to take the surplus land holdings. Attili Narasayyamma filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULCR Act. Sons, daughters and grandchildren have also filed declarations under Section 6(1) of the ULCR Act on the basis of family arrangement. After due enquiry, the competent authority issued draft statement under Section 8(1), together with notice under Section 8(3) of the ULCR Act provisionally determining Attili Narasayyamma as a surplus landholder to the extent of 38781 sq.mtrs. in S. Nos.29/1, 30/1, 30/2 and 30/3 of Kapparada Village.

5. In response to the notice issued under Section 8(3) of the ULCR Act, all the declarants including the first respondent herein filed identical objections, except late Attili Narasayyamma. Before the competent authority, the declarants were represented through their counsel. After giving due opportunity of hearing by issuing notices to the individual declarants and also to their counsel, the competent authority passed the order dated 5.1.1982 finding Attili Narasayyamma to be holder of surplus land to the extent of 38781 sq.mtrs. Challenging the said order passed by the competent authority, Attili Narasayyamma filed an appeal under Section 33 of the ULCR Act. In the meantime, final statement under Section 9 of the ULCR Act had been issued. Notification under Section 10(1) and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULCR Act were issued and they were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 24.2 1983 and 22.10.19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 814

IMPORTANT POINTSEntire provisions of CPC are not made applicable to the ULCR Act.Review petition cannot be allowed on the basis of a plea which has been raised and rejected at all stages of the proceeding.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Entire provisions of CPC are not made applicable to the ULCR Act.
Review petition cannot be allowed on the basis of a plea which has been raised and rejected at all stages of the proceeding.