Case: The Government Of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Ors Vs. M. Krishnaveni &amp; Ors

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. 21. 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. 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. 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 sistersFor 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