Land acquisition case - Cheque petitions by Legal Heirs as Decree Holders - Court enhanced the compensation - Govt. filed appeal - High court directed to deposit half of the amount and permitted to withdraw with out security - Pending appeal and E.P. the DHR died - his legal heirs /petitioners brought on record and E.P. was amended - Legal Heirs filed cheque petitions - lower court dismissed the same on the ground (1). that he petitioners have not obtained any permission from the Court to withdraw the amount as the legal heirs of deceased Md.Kareem Khan and (2) that the petitioners have not filed any document to show prima facie that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Md.Kareem Khan. - their Lordships held that A law Court should always be pragmatic in its approach and not dogmatic. The lower Court completely lacked proper vision in dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners by assigning jejune reasons. The approach of the lower Court calls for strong indictment. For the above-mentioned reasons, the orders under revisions are set aside.- 2015 Telangan & A.P. msklawreports



This Court is constrained to place on record its thorough
dissatisfaction with the manner in which the lower Court presided
over by no less an Officer than of the cadre of Additional District
Judge has passed the orders under revisions.

One Md.Kareem Khan was admittedly the owner of certain
lands, which were acquired along with various lands belonging to
other persons for the purpose of outer ring road for Hyderabad.  An
award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.11.2007
fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per sq.yard.
Feeling dissatisfied with the said award, the said Md.Kareem Khan
has got the dispute referred under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.  By award, dated 29.04.2013, the reference
Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,500/- per sq.yard.
in LA.AS.MP.No.141 of 2014, a Division Bench of this Court
has suspended the judgment of the reference Court on condition of
respondent No.1 depositing half of the enhanced compensation
within six weeks.  The Division Bench further observed that it shall be
open to the respondents in the appeal, who include Md.Kareem
Khan, to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.

Later, Md.Kareem Khan, who was decree holder No.5, filed
E.P.No.11 of 2013.  During the pendency of the EP, he died.
I.A.No.2274 of 2015 was filed by the petitioners for coming on record
as the legal heirs of the deceased Md.Kareem Khan.  By order,
dated 20.08.2014, the lower Court has allowed the said application
and amendment of the cause title in the EP was also carried out.

Thereafter, the petitioners have filed separate EAs for issue of
cheques in respect of their respective shares in the amount deposited at interim direction of Appellant court.
 By separate but identical orders, the lower Court has dismissed these applications.

A perusal of the orders passed by the lower Court, which are
under challenge in these civil revision petitions, shows that it has
dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners on two grounds,
namely, (1) that the petitioners have not obtained any permission
from the Court to withdraw the amount as the legal heirs of
deceased Md.Kareem Khan and (2) that the petitioners have not
filed any document to show prima facie that they are the legal
heirs of the deceased Md.Kareem Khan.  These two reasons in the
opinion of this Court are wholly fallacious.  The very Judge who
passed the orders under revisions has allowed I.A.No.2274 of 2014
filed by all the seven petitioners under Order XXII Rule 3 r/w Section
151 CPC for being brought on record as decree holder Nos.7 to 12
in the place of the deceased decree holder No.5.  It is, therefore,
incomprehensible that the lower Court should question the status of
the petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased Md.Kareem Khan.
With the petitioners being brought on record in E.P.No.11 of 2013 in
the place of the deceased Md.Kareem Khan, they have stepped
into his shoes as decree holders.  As noted above, the Division
Bench has left the six respondents in LA.AS.MP.No.141 of 2014,
including Md.Kareem Khan, who was respondent No.5 therein, to
withdraw the amount without furnishing any security.
In the face of these uncontroverted facts, this Court is unable
to read the mind of the lower Court in dismissing the cheque
petitions filed by the petitioners.  The lower Court has not referred to
any provision of law under which a separate application for its
permission to withdraw the amount needs to be filed by the
petitioners.  A law Court should always be pragmatic in its
approach and not dogmatic.  The lower Court completely lacked
proper vision in dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners by
assigning jejune reasons.  The approach of the lower Court calls for
strong indictment.
      For the above-mentioned reasons, the orders under revisions
are set aside.  All the EAs filed by the petitioners are allowed.  The
lower Court is directed to issue cheques to the petitioners in respect
of their respective shares within two weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.- 2015 Telangan & A.P. msklawreports

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515