Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) Petitioners have constructive knowledge through Bansilal, who is no other than their brother and who participated in the proceedings. Petitioners are set up by their brother Bansilal, who had lost a writ petition W.P.No. 29477 of 1997 earlier.

(iii) Petitioners did not submit objections to the notification issued under Section 10(1) and the declaration under Section 10(3). Therefore the land is legally vested in the Government.

(iv) The petitioners have approached this Court after considerable lapse of time. The petitioners have set up the claim belatedly and the writ petition is therefore not liable to be entertained as it suffers from serious laches.

14. It is the contention of the State that the petitioners have constructive knowledge of the proceedings, as their brother Bansilal was participating in the proceedings, and hence the petitioners cannot have independent grievance. Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Parchuri Ratnakar Rao v. State of A.P. and others 5 is relied upon to support the contention. The said Judgment has no bearing on the case on hand. In that case one, Velpula Laxmaiah filed declaration under Section 6 as kartha claiming the said land as belonging to joint family. His wife, four major sons and two minor sons were shown as interested persons. The sons and grandsons sold some land under a sale deed, dated 26-08-1997. The purchaser filed the above said case impugning the orders of the competent authority. By the date of purchase, all the proceedings under the Act were completed. Final order under Section 8 (4) and final statement under Section 9 of the Act were issued on 16-09-1981 after duly issuing notices to the declarant for hearing on 10-04-1981 and 03-09-1981. Then notification under Section 10 (1) was issued on 16-12-1981 and it was published in the A.P. gazette on 07-01-1982. The notification under Section 10 (3) was issued on 06- 08-1991 and it was published in the gazette on 28-08-1991. Thereupon, notice under Section 10 (5) was issued on 17-06-1992. The said notice was served on one of the sons of Laxmaiah viz., V.Laxminarayana on 26-06-1992. Thus, the action of taking possession alone remained which happened on 16-11-1998. In the fact situation, it was held that the parties had positive knowledge of the proceedings under the Act, and no separate notices need be issued to the four major sons of Lakshmaiah.

15. In the instant case, the situation is different. The declaration was filed showing Bansilal and some others (not the petitioners) as entitled to separate holdings on the ground that property was acquired by the husband of the declarant benami in her name. Bansilal was appearing in his own right as a sharer pleading that he was entitled for a separate holding. He was not representing any other sharer of the property. He too did not disclose the names of the petitioners who survived their father. In any event, it is nobody's case that Bansilal was the Kartha of the family after the demise of his father nor is it their case that Bansilal and the petitioners are residing together as members of the joint family. Even the competent authority did not accept the plea of the declarant that the lands were purchased by her husband benami in her name for the benefit of the family. On the other hand, the said plea was specifically rejected. Therefore, it is not possible to attribute constructive knowledge of the proceedings to the petitioners. For the same reasons, it is not possible to accept the contention that the petitioners are set up by Bansilal simply because he lost a writ petition. Admittedly the petitioners were not parties to the writ petition. It may be true that on a few occasions an advocate appointed by the declarant appeared on her behalf and even the advocate did not participate ever since 28-09-1991. As stated hereinbefore the advocate could not have attended as his authority had ceased on the death of the declarant. It may also be true that the competent authority was not aware of the death of the declarant and the order was passed bona fide, but it is not sufficient to save and uphold the order, which is a nullity.