http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  5309-5314 of 2000

PETITIONER: The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

RESPONDENT: M. Krishnaveni & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/08/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

       These Civil Appeals are disposed of by this common  judgment as they involve identical issues and questions of law.     All 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 said Act.         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.          Aggrieved 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.         Being 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.         The 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

daughters, namely, P. Rukmini and M. Krishnaveni,  respondents were married on 9.6.1974 and 10.6.1974  respectively.         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.          Section 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 person.   Sections 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).   Objections 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).           The 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

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).         In 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 (a) by affixing copies of the  notification in a conspicuous place in the office of the  Competent authority and (b) by affixing 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.         The 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.   No 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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

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.          On 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.         The 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.           The 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.            We 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.            Mr.  Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

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].         Per 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.   According 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.           We have duly and thoughtfully considered the respective  contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.         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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

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.          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.  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

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".         Mr. Rajendra 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.   In Sarupuri 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.         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 \026 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

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.   Thus, 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.  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.         Now, 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.   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

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.          For 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.   Consequently, W. P. No. 28292/98 filed by Smt. K. Pramila  Rani shall stand dismissed.         In the 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.   Resultantly, 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.