THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus M. KRISHNA VENI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 11-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
M. KRISHNA VEN! AND ORS. 
AUGUST 11, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANT A, JJ.) 
B 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-Sections 6, 8, 9 and 
ID-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976-Rules, 3 and 5-
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 14(1)-Declaration filed by original C 
owner, wife and three sons-Declarations also filed by two of the three 
daughters claiming their share on the basis of a family arrangement which 
were given to them at the tim;! of marriage as per custom-Draft statement 
determining surplus land and a Notice issued to the declarants for objections-
Competent authority allotted lands to the sons only and not to the daughters 
being not entitled to any share in the property-All declarants except the D 
daughters gave no-objection for surrender of excess land-Final statement 
and a Notification issued in Official Gazette notifYing the vestment of surplus 
land with the State-Compensation paid to the sons-Writ Petitions by sons 
and daughters challenging the order of the Competent authority claiming 
shares for the daughters on the basis on the basis of a family arrangement- E 
High Court directed the State to re-open the declarations-Correctness of-
Held, on facts, in the case of the sons, final order of the competent authority 
is not arbitrary, perverse or illegal since they have voluntarily surrendered 
their excess lands and accepted compensation-Daughters are entitled to 
· hold property as full owner in their own name and hence the order of the 
competent authority against them is quashed-Directions to the State to hold F 
an independent enquiry on the declarations filed by them-Daughter, who 
has not filed a declaration, cannot seek a similar relief as the remaining 
daughters. 
Original owner, who had three sons and three daughters, was owning 
land measuring 119 acres. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, G 
1976 came into force. Under the Act, the wife of the original owner filed a 
joint declaration of their shares in the land on behalf of herself, the original 
owner and three sons. Separate declarations were filed by the two daughters 
stating that the shares in the land were given to them as per a family 
495 
H 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A arrangement at the time of their marriages as per their age-old custom. No 
declaration was filed by the third daughter. Competent Authority prepared a 
Draft Statement and issued a Notice to the declarants calling for objections 
determining s•irplus land. The Authority allotted one unit to the original 
owner, his wife and minor son jointly and one unit each to two major sons. 
B The daughters were held not entitled to any share in the property. A Final 
Statement was issued under section 9 of the Act confirming the Draft 
statement. A Notification acquiring excess land was issued and was published 
in the Official Gazette. A declaration was issued stating the vestment of the 
surplus land with the State free from all encumbrances. The State issued a 
notice under section 10(5) of the Act directing the declarants to surrender 
C the surplus lands. The declarants voluntarily surrendered possession of the 
surplus lands and received compensation amount in cash and in the form of 
Government Bonds. 
The three sons and three daughters filed separate Writ Petitions before 
High Court challenging the final order of the Competent authority by claiming 
D respective shares of the married daughters on the basis of custom as per family 
arrangement and seeking exemption under a State Notification. A Single 
Judge of the High Court, by a common order, directed appellant-State to reopen 
the entire declarations. The Writ Appeals filed by the State were dismissed 
by the High Court. 
E 
In a1>peal to the Court, the appellant-State contended that the Final 
statement and a Notification vesting of surplus lands with the State under the 
Act were issued only after getting no-objection from the respondent and after 
following various statutory proceedings under the Act; that the respondents 
have received their compensation for surrender of the surplus land; that"the 
F High Court was wrong in directing reopening of the concluded statutory 
proceedings after nearly about two decades of attaining their finality; that 
the respondents cannnot claim now by applying the principle of estoppel or 
res judicata; and that the surplus land has already been all

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