Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

107) The petitioners also do not dispute that Jehangir Patel, one of the Directors of RBI and one of the executors under the Will offered to sell the said land to RBI at Rs.34/- per square yard. RBI accepted the offer made by Jehangir Patel. Since the ULC Act came into force in the State of Maharashtra on 17 th February, 1976 an application for exemption was made by Jehangir Patel and other two surviving executors to the Government of Maharashtra for exempting the said land so as to enable them to execute conveyance in favour of RBI. We have perused that application, copy of which is at page 225 of the compilation of documents placed by the petitioners themselves on record. That is an application dated 14 th July, 1976. In that application, it is stated that Minocher, Jehangir and Merwanji, the surviving executors of the last Will dated 22nd May, 1935 of R.D. Patel, made application invoking section 20(1)(a) of the ULC/Principal Act and with the description of the land. In para 3 of this application, it is claimed that this is the only remaining un- administered estate of R. D. Patel, which, having regard to the J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.1468.2009+.doc provisions of Will, goes to several persons, who are claiming through his three sisters and two brothers. We are not referring to this only for repetition but for a specific reason, namely, in para 4 of this application, there is a reference to the prior letter of 6th September, 1974 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of RBI offering to sell to the RBI the entire land including the said property, a joint survey by the authorities and it is stated that in accordance with the usual practice of RBI, this letter of offer was scrutinized by its various departments, considered by several committees and that offer was accepted on 9 th October, 1974 by the RBI. This application then records as to how there are reservations on the land and for several public purposes. Upon this application, which culminates in a request for grant of exemption, the Government passed an order rejecting it.

J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.1468.2009+.doc

108) The competent authority's letter dated 27th May, 1982 and a fresh application filed under section 20 dated 4 th June, 1982 are the further facts referred and what we have noted from the dates and events and the petition averments is that the petitioners have described respondent nos. 6(a) and (b) as executors of the Will of Jehangir Patel, who himself was executor under the Will of R. D. Patel and respondent nos. 7(a) to (d) as executors of the Will of Shavak Pestonji Patel. They have also, in the writ petition, stated that these parties have been impleaded as party respondents because they represent estate of Jehangir Patel and Shavak Patel. The petitioners have themselves set out the position regarding previous orders passed under the ULC Act up to March, 1983, culminating in an order under section 20 dated 10th September, 1982, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 'F' to the writ petition. They have also set out the events post this order and relied upon the communication from the ULC authorities requiring all the beneficiaries, including petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to attend on 28 th February, 1983 the office of the competent authority to identify the portion of the land which each of the beneficiaries intend to retain as his/her land within the ceiling limits. The petitioners state that this was done and an order dated 28th February, 1983 was passed, whereby, out of the area of 59407.10 square meters determined as surplus J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.1468.2009+.doc vacant land for the purpose of exemption order dated 10 th September, 1980, an area of 9043 square meters was reduced as being within the ceiling limits and that is how an order was passed on 28th February, 1983 and a corrigendum was issued modifying the area in the exemption order dated 10th September, 1982. This corrigendum is dated 19 th March, 1983 Annexure 'H'.

111) Mr. Chidambaram's arguments overlook the scheme of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and its specific provisions relating to the role and power of executors. That Act consolidates the law applicable to intestate and testamentary succession. Part IX of the Act deals with probate, letters of administration and administration of estate of deceased. Chapter I thereunder deals with the grant of probate and letters of administration. Section 211 appearing in Part VIII defines the character and property of executor or administrator as such. We need not refer to all provisions in further details, simply because it is undisputed that the owner left a Will. There were executors appointed under this Will and it was duly probated. Section 222 of the Succession Act is clear inasmuch as a probate of the Will could be granted only to a executor. The predecessor-in-title is Dara Patel son of Ardeshir.

Ardeshir was one of the brothers. Since it is stated that Ardeshir's Will was probated, it is the executors thereof who would be entitled to apply for and obtain a probate of that Will. It is they who would be empowered by law to administer the estate, exercise all powers and perform the functions and duties and J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.1468.2009+.doc provided Ardeshir's Will granted any part of the estate to Dara and benefits thereof can be derived by the petitioners still we do not see how the executors under the Will of R. D. Patel are denuded of their power and authority in law and under his Will. If they exercise these powers as are vested in them and deal with the subject lands, then, it is doubtful whether the petitioners can complain about their exercise in these proceedings or under the ULC Act before the competent authority. Thus, petitioners nos. 1 and 2 have a limited title in the property and that also is now divested in favour of petitioner no. 3. Thus, the locus of these petitioners is rightly questioned by the State. We are of the opinion that once the executors under the Will of the owner take certain steps and measures in relation to this immovable property, then, the petitioners are bound by the same. In any event, the petitioners 1 and 2 are bound by their own acts and deeds so also the documents executed by them in favour of petitioner no. 3.