MUMBAI: At a time when land is at a premium in Mumbai and land-grabbing a common occurrence, the Bombay HC, in an order, has ruled that the state government can take over land if a property does not have any legal heirs or beneficiaries.
Forty-four years after a man died without any heirs, leaving behind a 5,143-sq m plot in Ghatkopar, the HC directed that the state be included as a party in the land dispute. In 1944,Kashinath Sawant bought the Ghatkopar land. He died in 1969 without any heirs. Neelkanth housing society said it was the owner as the developer who constructed the building had purchased the plot. Bhuwaneshwar Tripathi has staked claim saying he was a tenant in the chawl on the land.
"If the trial court finds that the property's last known lawful owner has not left any legal heir, descendant, rightful nominee or beneficiary, it would vest in the state government," said Justice A P Bhangale. "In the case in hand, if the trial court finds it necessary to apply doctrine of escheat, it has to be applied-to order forfeiture of all property (including bank accounts) to the state treasury if it appears certain that there are no rightful heirs, descendants or named beneficiaries," the court said.
It said land-grabbing was a major concern for orphaned properties and sometimes happens due to connivance of government officials. "Any person seeking to grab land and unlawfully taking disadvantage of want of legal heir of the property's last-known owner shall never be encouraged. Land grabbing may succeed because sometimes corrupt or negligent self-serving elements intermingle in the government machinery may be responsible in encouraging nominal money payments towards revenue arrears and obtaining of written receipts by an unauthorized person to help the unlawful cause of land grabbing and tax dodging,'' added the judge.
The HC asked the trial court to ensure that the matter be taken to its logical conclusions as litigants sometimes known to exploit loopholes in the system. "It is often experienced in such cases that either of the parties may upon some pretext or the other, that is a some sort of settlement outside the court, try to withdraw the casefrom the case .... or to avoid the court or remain absent from the court finding that a serious issue is being tried that may have drastic consequences," said the court.
Forty-four years after a man died without any heirs, leaving behind a 5,143-sq m plot in Ghatkopar, the HC directed that the state be included as a party in the land dispute. In 1944,Kashinath Sawant bought the Ghatkopar land. He died in 1969 without any heirs. Neelkanth housing society said it was the owner as the developer who constructed the building had purchased the plot. Bhuwaneshwar Tripathi has staked claim saying he was a tenant in the chawl on the land.
"If the trial court finds that the property's last known lawful owner has not left any legal heir, descendant, rightful nominee or beneficiary, it would vest in the state government," said Justice A P Bhangale. "In the case in hand, if the trial court finds it necessary to apply doctrine of escheat, it has to be applied-to order forfeiture of all property (including bank accounts) to the state treasury if it appears certain that there are no rightful heirs, descendants or named beneficiaries," the court said.
It said land-grabbing was a major concern for orphaned properties and sometimes happens due to connivance of government officials. "Any person seeking to grab land and unlawfully taking disadvantage of want of legal heir of the property's last-known owner shall never be encouraged. Land grabbing may succeed because sometimes corrupt or negligent self-serving elements intermingle in the government machinery may be responsible in encouraging nominal money payments towards revenue arrears and obtaining of written receipts by an unauthorized person to help the unlawful cause of land grabbing and tax dodging,'' added the judge.
The HC asked the trial court to ensure that the matter be taken to its logical conclusions as litigants sometimes known to exploit loopholes in the system. "It is often experienced in such cases that either of the parties may upon some pretext or the other, that is a some sort of settlement outside the court, try to withdraw the casefrom the case .... or to avoid the court or remain absent from the court finding that a serious issue is being tried that may have drastic consequences," said the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment