Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — S. 212 — Vacant Land Tax — Land earmarked for recreational (Park) use under Master Plan — Levy prior to conversion — Validity. Where the land of the petitioner was admittedly earmarked as residential-cum-recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan, and conversion to commercial use was approved only with effect from 08.06.2018, levy of vacant land tax for the period prior to conversion is without jurisdiction, as the petitioner was legally incapacitated from using or alienating the land during such period. (Paras 19, 20, 22, 23)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — S. 212 — Vacant Land Tax — Land earmarked for recreational (Park) use under Master Plan — Levy prior to conversion — Validity.

Where the land of the petitioner was admittedly earmarked as residential-cum-recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan, and conversion to commercial use was approved only with effect from 08.06.2018, levy of vacant land tax for the period prior to conversion is without jurisdiction, as the petitioner was legally incapacitated from using or alienating the land during such period.

(Paras 19, 20, 22, 23)

Vacant Land Tax — Condition precedent — Ability to use land — Incapacity due to statutory reservation.

Vacant land tax cannot be levied for a period during which the landowner could neither utilize the land for any purpose nor offer it for sale, owing to statutory reservation for recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan.

(Paras 19, 20)

Municipal Administration — Demand notice — Jurisdiction — Special Notice issued pending conversion proceedings — Sustainability.

Issuance of a special notice demanding vacant land tax, while the authorities themselves had initiated and processed conversion of land use, and in the absence of any objection from statutory authorities, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(Paras 16, 17, 21, 23)

Natural Justice — Administrative consistency — Contradictory stand in counter affidavit.

Where the municipal authority itself forwarded proposals, demanded processing fees, and acted upon the premise that the land was earmarked for recreational use, a contrary plea in the counter affidavit denying such earmarking is untenable and contrary to record.

(Para 21)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS (Paragraph-wise)

Nature of Challenge

The writ petition challenged the VLT Special Notice dated 22.03.2017 issued by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation demanding vacant land tax. (Para 1)

Property Details

The petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring 14,990 square yards in N.T.S. No.71, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada. (Para 2)

Master Plan Reservation

A portion of the land was earmarked for recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan; the remaining portion had sheds assessed to property tax, which the petitioner was regularly paying. (Para 3)

Initiation of Conversion Proceedings

The petitioner submitted a representation on 31.03.2015 seeking conversion of land use to commercial. The proposal was forwarded to APCRDA, and traffic impact assessment was obtained, with no objection. (Paras 4, 14, 15)

Administrative Conduct

The 2nd respondent passed a resolution and demanded processing fee of Rs.7,30,480/- on 03.06.2017. Conversion was ultimately approved and notified on 08.06.2018. (Paras 5, 17)

Earlier Litigation

Multiple writ petitions were filed earlier, culminating in directions that vacant land tax could be demanded only from 04.06.2018 onwards, leaving the legality of prior demand open for adjudication in the present writ petition. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

Municipal Stand

The municipal corporation contended that the petitioner failed to produce documents showing recreational reservation and that vacant land tax was leviable under Section 212. (Paras 10, 11)

ANALYSIS OF LAW

Core Legal Issue

Whether vacant land tax could be levied for the period prior to conversion of land use, when the land stood earmarked for recreational (Park) use.

Statutory Interpretation

The Court interpreted Section 212 of the Municipal Corporations Act in the context of actual legal usability of land, not mere physical possession. (Paras 19, 20)

Effect of Statutory Reservation

Reservation under the Master Plan created a legal embargo on use, development, or alienation of the land, disentitling the municipal authority from levying vacant land tax. (Paras 19, 20)

Administrative Consistency and Estoppel

The Court found the municipal authority’s denial of recreational earmarking to be self-contradictory, in light of its own correspondence, resolutions, and conversion proceedings. (Para 21)

Jurisdictional Error

Demand raised through the impugned special notice was held to be without jurisdiction, as it ignored the statutory and factual position prevailing during the relevant period. (Paras 22, 23)

RATIO DECIDENDI

Vacant land tax under Section 212 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 cannot be levied for a period during which the land stood statutorily earmarked for recreational (Park) use under the Master Plan and prior to its conversion, as the landowner is legally incapacitated from using, developing, or alienating the land; any demand raised for such period is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Writ of Habeas Corpus — Maintainability — Missing ...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Writ of Habeas Corpus — Maintainability — Missing ...: advocatemmmohan AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 226 — Writ of Habeas Corpus — Maintainability — Missing person ...

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 226 — Writ of Habeas Corpus — Maintainability — Missing person — Absence of allegation of illegal detention — Effect.
Where the admitted case of the petitioner is that the corpus voluntarily left the house and his whereabouts are unknown, and a “man missing” case has already been registered and is under investigation, in the absence of any pleading or allegation of illegal confinement or detention by the State, its officers, or any private individual, a writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable.
Illegal detention is the sine qua non for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.
(Paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

Habeas Corpus — Condition precedent — Pleadings — Suspicion without factual foundation — Not permissible.
A plea of suspicion regarding illegal detention raised for the first time during arguments, without any factual foundation in the writ pleadings, cannot be entertained or countenanced by the Constitutional Court.
(Paras 10, 11)

Criminal Procedure — Missing person — Police investigation — Scope of constitutional jurisdiction.
Cases of missing persons are required to be investigated under the regular provisions of law, and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court cannot be invoked in the absence of allegations of illegal detention.
(Paras 9, 12, 13)

Directions — Police investigation — Man missing case.
Even while dismissing the Habeas Corpus petition as not maintainable, the Police authorities were directed to continue the investigation and make efforts to trace the whereabouts of the missing person and take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
(Para 13)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS (Paragraph-wise)

1. Nature of Petition
   The writ petition was filed by the mother of the corpus seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging failure of police authorities to trace her son who was missing since 06.10.2025. (Para 1)

2. Status of the Corpus
   The corpus was a major and married person, having matrimonial disputes and living separately from his wife. (Para 3)

3. Circumstances of Missing
   It was an admitted case that the corpus left the house voluntarily on 06.10.2025 at about 9.00 A.M. to attend his car-driving duty and did not return thereafter. (Paras 3, 8)

4. Police Action
   A complaint was lodged by the sister of the corpus on 09.10.2025, pursuant to which Crime No.412 of 2025 was registered as a “man missing” case, and investigation was in progress. (Paras 3, 6)

5. Absence of Detention Allegation
   There was no allegation in the writ affidavit that the corpus was illegally detained or confined by any person, authority, or State agency. (Paras 5, 8, 11)

6. Belated Suspicion Argument
   An argument regarding suspicion against a woman named Divya and her family was raised only during hearing, without any pleadings to that effect. (Paras 10, 11)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Core Legal Issue
   Whether a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable in a case of a missing person, where there is no allegation or pleading of illegal detention.

2. Settled Legal Position
   The Court reiterated that unlawful detention is a condition precedent for invoking Habeas Corpus jurisdiction. (Paras 8, 9)

3. Reliance on Precedent
   The Court relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2025 SCC OnLine MP 893, which, after surveying Supreme Court jurisprudence, held that Habeas Corpus does not lie in missing person cases. (Paras 5, 8, 9)

4. Supreme Court Authority
   The principle laid down in (2020) 14 SCC 161 was extracted to reiterate that Habeas Corpus lies only where there is deprivation of personal liberty by unlawful detention. (Para 8)

5. Limits of Constitutional Jurisdiction
   The Court emphasized that missing person cases must proceed under the regular criminal law framework, and constitutional courts should not convert Habeas Corpus proceedings into supervisory investigations. (Paras 9, 12)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in respect of a missing person where the admitted case is that the person voluntarily left, a “man missing” case is registered, and there is neither an allegation nor a factual foundation in the pleadings suggesting illegal detention or confinement by the State, its officers, or any private individual; unlawful detention being the sine qua non for issuance of the writ.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure — Delay in Trial — Pre-2019 Cases ...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure — Delay in Trial — Pre-2019 Cases ...: advocatemmmohan Civil Procedure — Delay in Trial — Pre-2019 Cases — High Court Circulars — Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 — Expe...

Civil Procedure — Delay in Trial — Pre-2019 Cases — High Court Circulars — Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 — Expeditious Disposal

When a suit instituted prior to 2019 remains pending without effective progress, the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, is justified in issuing directions to expedite disposal in compliance with High Court circulars mandating priority disposal of old cases.
Trial Courts are duty-bound to follow administrative instructions of the High Court regarding reduction of backlog and timely disposal.
(Paras 3–6)

Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) — Reception of Documents — Relevancy of Evidence Documents sought to be received under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC must have direct relevance to the matter in issue. Irrelevant documents, even if genuine, cannot be received merely because they are executed by the party.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) — Reception of Documents — Relevancy of Evidence

Documents sought to be received under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC must have direct relevance to the matter in issue. Irrelevant documents, even if genuine, cannot be received merely because they are executed by the party.

Evidence — Suit on Promissory Note — Plea of Forgery — Comparative Signatures

In a suit based on a promissory note, where the defence is that the signature on the promissory note is forged, a document executed on a different occasion and for a different transaction, even if signed by the defendant, does not become relevant per se unless it directly assists in adjudicating the disputed signature.

Supervisory Jurisdiction — Article 227 — Limited Interference

Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is not warranted where the trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and rejected production of documents on the ground of irrelevance.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

Facts

• The respondent filed O.S. No.147 of 2020 for recovery of money based on a promissory note.

• The petitioner/defendant pleaded forgery, contending that:

  • He does not sign in Telugu;

  • He signs only in English.

• To support this plea, the defendant filed I.A. No.661 of 2025 under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC, seeking to receive a registered settlement deed, allegedly signed by him in English.

• The trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the document was irrelevant.

• The defendant challenged the said order under Article 227.

Issue

Whether a registered settlement deed executed by the defendant in English is relevant and admissible to decide the plea of forgery in a suit on a promissory note allegedly signed in Telugu.

Findings

1. Relevance is the Governing Test
   The High Court held that admissibility under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC is not automatic; relevance to the controversy is essential.

2. Nature of Dispute is Narrow
   The controversy is confined to the genuineness of the signature on the promissory note.

3. Collateral Documents Not Automatically Relevant
   A settlement deed executed on a different occasion, relating to a different transaction, does not assist in deciding whether the defendant signed the promissory note in question.

4. No Jurisdictional Error
   The trial Court correctly exercised its discretion. The order did not suffer from perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error.

5. Article 227 Cannot Be Used as an Appeal
   The High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-appreciate discretionary procedural orders of the trial Court.

Result

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, affirming the trial Court’s refusal to receive the document.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A document sought to be received under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC must be directly relevant to the issue in dispute; in a suit on a promissory note alleging forgery of signature, a registered settlement deed executed by the defendant on a different occasion does not become admissible merely to show the language of his usual signature, and refusal to receive such a document does not warrant interference under Article 227.

Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Clever Drafting — Illusory Cause of Action While ordinarily only the averments in the plaint are to be considered for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not powerless to examine whether the plaint is a product of clever drafting intended to create an illusory cause of action, particularly where admitted documents and undisputed facts indicate that the suit is vexatious. Limitation — Partition Suit — Long-Standing Oral Partition Where a suit for partition is instituted after several decades of an admitted or pleaded oral partition, and the plea of limitation is raised, the Court must meaningfully examine whether the suit is ex facie barred by limitation, and cannot mechanically defer the issue on the ground that limitation is always a mixed question of law and fact.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Clever Drafting — Illusory Cause of Action

While ordinarily only the averments in the plaint are to be considered for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is not powerless to examine whether the plaint is a product of clever drafting intended to create an illusory cause of action, particularly where admitted documents and undisputed facts indicate that the suit is vexatious.

Limitation — Partition Suit — Long-Standing Oral Partition

Where a suit for partition is instituted after several decades of an admitted or pleaded oral partition, and the plea of limitation is raised, the Court must meaningfully examine whether the suit is ex facie barred by limitation, and cannot mechanically defer the issue on the ground that limitation is always a mixed question of law and fact.

Order VII Rule 11 — Scope of Enquiry — Consideration of Documents

In appropriate cases, documents referred to, relied upon, or admitted by the plaintiffs themselves, or forming part of undisputed prior proceedings, may be looked into to determine whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action or merely an illusion created by suppression of material facts.

Partition Suit — Duplication of Properties in Schedule

Duplication of schedule items and incorrect boundaries in a plaint for partition are not trivial defects and may necessitate a deeper scrutiny at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, instead of outright rejection of the application without proper examination.

Supervisory Jurisdiction — Article 227

Failure of the trial Court to examine all relevant legal aspects while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

Facts

• The plaintiffs instituted O.S. No.2 of 2023 seeking partition.

• The defendants filed I.A. No.918 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of:

  • Oral partition in 1963 acted upon for nearly 60 years;

  • Mutation and enjoyment pursuant thereto;

  • Admission of partition by plaintiffs before revenue authorities;

  • Suit being barred by limitation;

  • Duplication of properties and incorrect boundaries in the plaint schedule.

• The trial Court dismissed the application, holding that only plaint averments could be seen and that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law.

Legal Issue

Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without examining allegations of clever drafting, limitation, duplication of properties, and the relevance of admitted documents.

Findings

1. Mechanical Application of Order VII Rule 11 Disapproved
   The High Court held that the trial Court adopted an overly narrow approach by refusing to examine anything beyond the plaint, despite serious allegations of suppression and illusory cause of action.

2. Limitation Can Be Examined at Threshold
   Relying on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, the Court reiterated that:

   • Though limitation is generally a mixed question,

   • Where the plaint itself, read meaningfully, shows the suit to be hopelessly barred, rejection is permissible.

3. Clever Drafting Requires Judicial Scrutiny
   The Court emphasized that courts must “nip in the bud” suits where clever drafting conceals material facts such as prior partitions acted upon for decades.

4. Relevance of Documents
   The Court found fault with the trial Court for not examining whether the documents sought to be relied upon by the defendants could be considered for deciding the Order VII Rule 11 application.

5. Duplication of Schedule Properties
   The presence of multiple duplicated items in the plaint schedule was treated as a serious defect requiring examination and not something to be brushed aside.

Result

The impugned order was set aside, and the trial Court was directed to decide the application afresh, after giving both parties full opportunity, including on the question whether documents relied upon by the defendants can be considered.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where, on a meaningful reading of the plaint together with admitted and undisputed material, it is found that the suit is barred by limitation or is a product of clever drafting intended to create an illusory cause of action; a trial Court commits jurisdictional error if it dismisses such an application mechanically without examining these aspects, thereby warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.