Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 August, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010250562022 Bench Sr.No:-8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3443]
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL No.495 of 2022
Sri Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited
(Formerly Sri Vasavi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited)
Having its registered office at Bobbili Road, Rajam,
Vizianagaram District (Formerly in Srikakulam District) - 532 127,
Represented by its authorized signatory Mr. Marri Venkateswarlu.
...Appellant
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, Senior Counsel a/w D. S. Sivadarshan, Advocate(s)
for the appellant.
Mrs. S. Pranathi (Special Government Pleader), Advocate for respondent
Nos.1 to 4.
Mrs. T. V. Sri Devi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 8.
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
DATE : 5th August, 2024
Per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ (Oral):
The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 05.05.2022 passed in WP.No.11504 of 2022.
2. The petition was filed by Sri Vasavi Jute Twine Mills Private
Limited questioning the orders passed by the Tahsildar, dated 23.03.2022 and
HCJ & NJS,J
WA_495_2022
24.03.2022, whereby the Record of Rights were changed to incorporate the
names of the private respondent Nos.5 and 6.
The main ground of challenge in the writ petition was with regard to the
violation of principles of natural justice by the Tahsildar.
3. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
procedure which was envisaged in the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and
Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 [for short, 'the Act of 1971] for changing the
Record of Rights had not been followed scrupulously.
It was stated that according to the procedure, before any change is
incorporated in the Record of Rights, a notice has to be issued in terms of
Section 5(3) of the Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 read with Rule 19 of the
Rules framed under the said Act, which notice has to be issued in Form VIII.
It was the case of the petitioner that the Tahsildar issued a notice which
contained the date 07.03.2022 but was signed by him on 09.03.2022.
According to Rule 19 read with Form VIII of the said Rules, a minimum 15
days notice ought to have been given to the noticee to file his objections as to
why the change in the Record of Rights sought by the applicant be not
granted.
It was stated that even before the expiry of the period of 15 days, the
Tahsildar proceeded to order attestation of mutation in favour of the private
respondents.
HCJ & NJS,J
WA_495_2022
According to the petitioner, the notice was received on 11.03.2022 and
therefore, the 15 days time period for filing objections was to expire only on
26.03.2022. However, it is stated that the mutation came to be attested on
24.03.2022 itself without conducting any enquiry for which a minimum of 20
days from the date of service of notice was otherwise envisaged in terms of
the aforementioned Rules.
4. It is in that background that the writ petition was considered by
the learned single Judge who dismissed the same primarily on the ground that
the petitioner, that is, Sri Vasavi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited had no locus
to file the writ petition inasmuch as it had lost its legal existence having been
amalgamated in Sri Vara Lakshmi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited by virtue of
a scheme of arrangement approved by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh by virtue of order dated 20.11.1997.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is no longer res integra that after the amalgamation of a
company it loses its legal existence. Reference in this regard can be made to
a judgment of the Apex Court in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd., [(2020) 18
SCC 331].
7. The petition filed on behalf of Sri Vasavi Jute Twine Mills was
clearly not maintainable being a non-existent company. To that extent, we do
not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order impugned.
HCJ & NJS,J
WA_495_2022
However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, that is, Sri
Varalakshmi Jute Twine Mills would submit that certain observations made in
the judgment and order impugned by the learned single Judge requiring the
petitioner to agitate the issues before the civil Court would come in the way of
the appellant to have its grievances redressed before any other forum even
when the same would be available to the appellant.
8. We cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the
one taken by the learned single Judge on the issue of maintainability of the
writ petition by Sri Vasavi Jute Twine Mills Private Limited. We, however,
clarify that nothing observed by the learned single Judge in the judgment and
order impugned would come in the way of the appellant in case it so chooses
to avail such remedies as are available in law.
9. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal with liberty to the
appellant to avail its remedies in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Vjl
