KHORSHED SHAPOOR CHENAI ETC. versus ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 04-12-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
f 
.. _ .. 
( · ... 
KHORSHED SHAPOOR CHEN AI ETC. 
v. 
ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY 
December 4, 1979 
315 
TP. N. BHAGWATI, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J 
B 
Esrate Duty Act, 1953-Norices under sections 59(a) and 61 for reopening 
;he assessments, consequent to enhancement of the compensation uttder section 
18 of tire Land Acquisition Act, made after tire E.D. Assessments were o~·er­
Lcgalisty of-Right to receive compensation at market value on tlze dares of the 
relevant notifications, Ia whom accmes-Right to receive compensation and 
Right to receive extra compensation. 
C 
The Andhra Pradesh Govemml!nt acquired the lands belonging 
to one 
Rashid Shapoor Chenai and situate at l\loosapet Village Hyderabad and Qut-
biUapur in .Medchal district. The special Deputy Collector of Land Acquisition 
awarded a total compensation of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 4,29,360 respectively. The 
wmpcnsation of Rs. 20,000 was. paid during the life time of Rashid and the 
·compensation of Rs. 4,29,360 was p·aid after Rashid's death to his widow 
D 
Mrs. Frcny Chen:.ti and son Shapoor Rashid Chenai on whom the estate of . 
Ra.,hid devolved in equal shares. 
On the death of Rashid on November 4, 1963, 1\Irs. Freny Chenai. (appcl· 
lant in CA 2206j72) as his widow and 'account:.tble perso~· tiled ~cfore the 
Re~pondent on December 26, 1963 an aet:ount. of the propert.lcs pass•ng on the 
death of her husband under section 53{3) of the Act. The estate duty assess-
E 
ment ~Aa.s completed by the respondent on. 1\Iarch. 29, 1966. With regard 
to 
the land§ acquired both during the lifetime of Rashid as well as after, their 
values were taken at the respective figures of compensation (Rs. 20,000 nod 
Rs. 4,29,360) awarded for them by the special Deputy Colh:ctor. 
Shapoor Rashid Chenai, who had one half share ~ the undiv!ded estate of . .,. 
hi, btc father Rashid died on 1\l:.ty, 7, 1965. As r<!QUII~ by_sect!on 53 of the 
I:" 
Act Mrs. Kborshcd Chcoai (appellant in CA 2205 (12) as his w•dow and the 
'«<:countable pc;t!!on'a ftlcd before the respondent on November 
6, 
1965 an 
account of tho properties pa.'iSing on the d~ath of her husband and the rc~pon-
dent completed the estato duty nsscssmcnt on December 30, 1966. Even here, 
tho rc~pondent adopted tho values of the lands ncqulrd by the Government at 
figure1 award~d by the epedal D<'puty Collector. 
G 
The le a1 heirs of Jato. Rashid did not nc~ept t~ awards by the special 
Dc:puty ~Ucctor in respect of tho lands ncqutred by GoveroJ:?7~t and a ref~-
I 
Cl il C urt und~r s 18 of the Land Aeqlllsttlon Act. The 
t'Oce was mad~> to 
v 
o 
~ 
• 
d 
h 
Civil c 
d 
d· ted March 6, 1967 fOct. 30, 1967 enhance 
t c 
com 
ou~t, by its or crs a 
cial Deputy Collector by Rs. 1,90,000 in r.:s· 
.PensatJon awarded by the spe 
.., 45 000 in rel>ptCt of Qutbillnpur lamb . 
.Pect of Moosapet lands and by R.!l. _do, . : 
of the Civil Court nnd filed 
0 
The Go 
did 
t capt the ectstons 
\'ernment 
no a 
. 
b 
nhancement which appeals nre still 
appeal,s to the High Court challcngwg t e e 
' 
Prnding in the High Court. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
n 
316 
SUPREME cOURT REPORTS 
(1980)2 S.C.It. 
· 
f ·nr mati'on that enhanced compensation was awarded by the 
On rcce1pt o 1 or 
• 
d 
· 
Civil Court in respect of tho above lands the respondent ~MUC 
two no!lces. 
both dated November 14, 1969, onq addressed to .Mrs. Khorshcd 
~hapoor 
Chenai and the other to Mrs. Freny Rashid Cbenar. Tho formec nohce was 
issued under section 59(a) of the Act calling upon Mrs. Khorsbed to show cause 
•h th Estate Duty assessment made on December 30, 1966 should not be 
'W y 
e 
. . 
dcd b 
th c· . 
reopened and revised in view of the extra compensallons awar . 
Y 
e 
1vi1 
Court in respect of the lands acquired by the Govc.n;mcnt, while the 
!~Iter 
notice was issued under section 61 of the Act requmng Mrs. Frcny Chenat to 
show c.1.use why the mistake apparent from the record should not be rectified 
and the enhanced compensation included in the principal value. of the estate. 
These noti~ were challenged by the reccipients by ftling writ petition.s in tbc 
High Court. The High Court negatived the contentions raised in both the writ 
petitions upheld the impugned notices :md dismissed the writ petition.s. Hence 
the two appeals by cei:tificates. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court. 
JIELD : 1. So far as the eswte duty assessment in respect of the properties. 
pas~ing on the death of Shapoor w:u concerned, the lands which w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.