HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Review W.A.M.P.No.1540 of 2009 in W.A.No.1840 of 2008 and C.C.No.1510 of 2010 Date: 30-04-2011 Review W.A.M.P.No.1540 of 2009 in W.A.No.1840 of 2008: Between: Athili Appala Swamy ……….. petitioner And The Commissioner of Appeals and another ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Review W.A.M.P.No.1540 of 2009 in W.A.No.1840 of 2008 and C.C.No.1510 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per BPR, J) In the review petition filed under Section 114 of C.P.C., the petitioner, who has been unsuccessful in the writ as well as in the writ appeal, seeks to review the order passed in the appeal in W.A.No.840 of 2008, dated 02-02-2009. Whereas the contempt case in C.C.No.1510 of 2010 is a proceeding, which has been initiated suo motu under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the action of the authorities which has been taken contrary to the stay orders granted in W.P.M.P.No.23005 of 2001 in W.P.No.18340 of 2001, dated 12-09-2001, since the final orders purportedly under Section 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) were passed on 13-12-2007 which is subsequent to the date of the interim order. The brief account, which gives rise to these proceedings, is that in response to Section 6(1) of the Act, the grandmother of the petitioner namely Narsayyamma filed a declaration in respect of the properties in Sy.Nos.30/1, 30/2, 29/1 and 32/3 situated at Kaprada village, Visakhapatnam. According to the petitioner, now as stated in the review petition, his grandmother received a notice, dated 30-11-1977 purportedly under Section 8(3) of the Said Act. But however, it has been pointed out that she died on 15-09-1977 itself i.e., even much prior to the date of issuance of the said notice. Therefore, the question of serving the notice on her does not arise nor any of her legal representatives since they were not brought on record. Yet final orders were passed on 05-01-1982 confirming the draft statement issued by the third respondent which also, according to the petitioner, was not served on them. Later, the father of the petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, dated 05-01-1982 before the Appellate Authority namely, the Commissioner of Appeals which was dismissed on 24-04- 2001 confirming the orders of the third respondent. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner has filed a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.No.18340 of 2001 wherein the learned single Judge of this Court granted interim stay on 24-04-2001 and the same was subsisting till the disposal of the writ petition. However, later the said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge as per the orders, dated 06-11-2008 on the ground that the grandmother of the petitioner and also her legal representatives participated in the proceedings and therefore, they are not entitled to make any complaint as against the same. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed a appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent in W.A.No.1840 of 2008 which was also dismissed on 02-02-2009 reiterating the very reasoning, namely participation of the legal representatives in the proceedings and also further stating that whatever the rights, which could have been decided, could be only as on the date of enforcement of the Act but not to take into consideration the subsequent entitlement or the rights of the legal representatives. Now, in the present review petition, the main ground urged is to the effect that the factum of death of the grandmother on 15-09-1977 and the issuance of the notice on 30-11-1977 was not brought to the notice of the Court and further having regard to the orders issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.603 Revenue (UC.I) dated 22-04-2008, the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, which has come into force w.e.f. 27-03-2008, the question of falling back to any such proceedings does not arise more so when the same orders, which have been passed by the competent authority, are totally wide in its nature. Therefore, the benefit of the repealing Act has to be necessarily extended since no final orders, in law, were passed nor any basis is taken. Complaining that inspite of the subsistence of the interim orders of stay, dated 12-09-2001, the authorities have passed an order on 31- 12-2007 and the possession was stated to have been taken on 04-01- 2008. Hence, it amounts to a clear contempt. Having considered the submissions made across the Bar from both sides and on perusal of the material on record, the questions arise for consideration are firstly, on the facts and circumstances, what would be the effect of the proceedings of the competent authority as per the original declaration filed by the grandmother of the petitioner, and secondly, what would be the effect of the orders passed subsequently which is in violation of the interim orders of this Court. There being no dispute in regard to the aforesaid chequred events and the fact remains, which is not denied nor rebutted on the part of the respondents herein, that the grandmother of the petitioner, who had filed the declaration, died on 15-09-1977. Whereas the notice under Section 8(3) of the said Act, for the purpose of holding an enquiry, was issued on 30-11-1977. It is not the case of the respondents herein that the said notice was served on the grandmother of the petitioner and she could not have participated. It is also not the case of the respondents herein that on her death, her legal representatives were brought on record and it is them who have been issued separate notices and the same was served and therefore, it can be said that there is participation. In the absence of proper representation of the estate of the deceased by proper legal representatives, any proceedings taken against a dead person are totally void ab initio and therefore, it can safely be said that the proceedings as referred to dated 05-01-1982 at the inception itself is totally void, illegal and non-est and the same could not be relied on for any purpose whatsoever nature. Therefore, consequently, it follows that even though the respondents stated to have passed subsequent orders on 31-12-2007 and 04-01-2008, which are only based upon or consequent to the aforesaid order, dated 05-01-1982, these subsequent proceedings also cannot be valid. There could not have been any such subsequent proceedings under the provisions of the Act unless and until the original order is valid and there is due determination in accordance with law. Since the original proceedings itself is void, all subsequent proceedings also become void and non-est. In view of the same, it can safely be said that the entire proceedings from the inception commencing from the date of the order, dated 05-01-1982 all along at the instance of the respondents by the authorities cannot be said to be valid and enforceable nor can be said to be binding against the petitioner or any of the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Narsayyamma. These facts apparently were not brought to the notice either before the learned single Judge or even before this Court when the main appeal was disposed of. Even now there is no dispute on the part of the respondents herein about the factum of death of the original declarant on 15-09-1977 even before issuance of the very first notice on 30-11-1977. In view of the same, the entire orders passed both by the learned single Judge and as well as by this Court in the appeal suffer from the error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, they are liable to be set aside. In view of the same, the review W.A.M.P. is allowed. The order, dated 06-11-2008 in W.P.No.18340 of 2001 and the order, dated 02-02-2009 in W.A.No.1840 of 2008 are set aside and consequently, W.P.No.18340 of 2001 filed by the petitioner stands allowed and the impugned orders therein dated 05-01-1982 and 24-02-2001 passed by the respondents 2 and 1 respectively, are set aside not only on the ground that the orders being void but also taking into account the effect of the provisions of the Act and since there is no valid determination of the holding nor valid final orders nor valid taking over of the possession. Coming to the contempt case, which is initiated suo motu, having regard to the aforesaid findings as arrived at, the entire orders from the beginning have been set aside and all the proceedings have no effect in view of the repealing Act. Therefore, without going into the merits, leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate fresh proceedings for contempt, if there is any such violation, the present contempt case is closed. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-04-2011 YCR