LexD.R. SOMAYAJULU, SECRETARY D.L.S. & OTHER S.E. RAILWAY HOUSE BLDG.CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. VISAKHAPATNAM versus ATTILIAPPALA SWAMY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 1458 A D.R. SOMAYAJULU, SECRETARY D.L.S. & OTHER S.E. RAILWAY HOUSE BLDG.CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. VISAKHAPATNAM V. B ATTILIAPPALASWAMY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 10404 of2014) NOVEMBER 19, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR,_ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND ,,. c R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XLV/I, r. 1 - Review jurisdiction- Scope- Held: Courts of review have only limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used in Or. XLV/I, r.1 C.P. C- It may allow a review D on three specified grounds, namely :- (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made; (ii) mistake or error apparent E on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason - Applicati9n for review on the ground of discovery of new material should be considered witff great caution and should not be granted very lightly- On facts, in review petition while setting aside its own order and then orders of the authorities F under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act [ULCR Act], the High Court observed that there was no proper representation of the estate of the deceased 'A' by proper legal representatives and any proceedings taken against a dead person were totally void ab initio - While so saying, the G High Court completely ignored the participation of sons, daugthers and grandchildren of 'A' in the proceedings before the competent authority and that the said objection was considered and negatived by all the forums - Insofar as the I-- H • 1458 - D.R. SOMAYAJ\,)LU, SEC8ETARY D.L.S. & OTHER v. 1459 ATTILIAPPALASWAMY & ORS. applicability of ULCR Repeal Act 1999, in the impugned order A only passing observations were made that " ...... all the proceedings have no effect in view of the repealing Act" - Impugned order passed by the High Court in review petition thus erroneous and not sustainable - Matters remitted back to the High Court for consideration afresh - Urban Land B (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999. State of UP v. Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280 - referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE (2013) 4 SCC 280 Para 26 referred to CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10404 of2014. c From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2011 of the D High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Review Petition being WPMP No. 1540 of 2009. WITH Civil Appeal No. 10408 of 2014. Guru Krishna Kumar, V.V.S. Rao, Sr.Advs., T.V. Ratnam, Ms. Jayshree, Guntur Prabhakar, G. N. Reddy, Advs. for the Appellant. E P. P. Rao, Prabhu Patel, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Babu, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms. Y. F Vismai Rao, Sudheer K. Reddy, Hitender Nath Rath, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Delay condoned in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9648/2013. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions. G H 1460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2014] 13 S.C.R. A 2. These appeal~ :::haiienge the correctness of order of Andhra Prddesh High Court passed in rev1evv application being W.P.M.P.No.1540/2009 ir VV1itAppeal No.184012003 dated 30.4.2011, setting aside the order dated 5.1.1982 passed by the competent authority determining an extent of B 38,781 sq. mtrs. of lateAttilli 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 C and events confront us in the course of determination of these appeals. Essentially, the core questions required to be examined are:- D E F (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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.