TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember, 2004, it was delayed by nearly 13 years. No explanation has been offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle the notice seeking to reverse the entries made half a century ago, was clearly beyond reasonable time and was rightly quashed. - Civil Appeal Nos. 325-326 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2015 - C. Nagappan And T.S. Thakur, JJ. For Appellant: L.N. Rao, ASG, R. Venkataramni, Sr. Adv., D. Mahesh Babu, Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Amit K. Nain, G.N. Reddy, Yogesh Jogia, Hemendra Reddy, Amit Sood and Hetu Arora Sethi, Advs. For Respondents: U.U. Lalit, Pravin H. Parekh, Ranjit Kumar, P.V. Shetty, S. Adi Narayan, Sr. Advs., Lalit Chauhan, Sumit Goel, Somandari Goud, Shashank Bhansali, Rithika Setthi, Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advs. for Parekh Co., Venkateshwar Rao Anumolu, Prabhakar Parnam, Y. Rajagopala Rao, Hitendra Nath Rath, Vismai Rao, D. Bharathi Reddy, D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Satish Galla, N. Rajaraman, A.S. Rao, Ram Swarup Sharma, Y. Raja Gopala Rao and G.N. Reddy, Advs. JUDGMENT C. Nagappan, 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition by order dated 30.8.2004 and set aside the impugned show cause notice. It is further stated by the writ Petitioners that the first Respondent on the very same basis issued subsequent notice dated 31.12.2004 for enquiry Under Section 166B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F fixing the date of hearing on 5.2.2005 and the Petitioners challenged the same in their writ petition No. 1731 of 2005 and the learned single Judge of the High Court heard both the writ petitions i.e. 21719 of 1997 and 1731 of 2005 together. 4. The said writ petitions were resisted by the Government by stating that the Jagirs were abolished on 15.8.1948 by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 fasli and the pre-existing rights in all the Jagirs were taken away and as per the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 the sub-divisions were made under Survey Nos. 36 and 37 of the village Gopanpally fraudulently by the Patwari and those sub-divisions and names were not approved by Nizam Jamabandi in Faisal Patti during the year 1954-55 as per the procedure in vogue and the schedule land bearing surv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to employees co-operative societies as one consolidated plot of land as shown in the Government records. According to the Appellants the names of the vendor of the Respondents have been recorded in the Khasra Pahani in the year 1954-55 surreptitiously by the then Patwari without any order issued by the competent authority under the relevant provisions of law and no right can be claimed merely on the basis of the fraudulent entries. 7. It is his further contention that the High Court failed to appreciate that the Government cannot be precluded from taking action to correct fraudulent entries in the Khasra Pahani by citing long lapse of time and the dismissal of the Writ Appeals is unsustainable in law. Mr. R. Venkataramni, learned senior Counsel appearing for the other Appellant also assailed the impugned order for the same reasons. In support of their submissions reliance was placed on the following decisions of this Court. In the decision in Collector and Ors. v. P. Mangamma and Ors. MANU/SC/0170/2003MANU/SC/0170/2003 : (2003) 4 SCC 488 this Court while dealing with suo motu action against irregular assignments under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts remedies by way of filing civil suit and the findings of the High Court are sustainable on facts and law. In support of their submissions reliance was placed on the following decisions of this Court. In the decision in State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 187 this Court while adverting to Sections 65 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 held that though there is no period of limitation prescribed Under Section 211 to revise an order made Under Section 65 of the Act, the said power must be exercised in reasonable time and on the facts of the case in which the decision arose, the power came to be exercised more than one year after the order and that was held to be too late. In the decision in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim: (1997) 6 SCC 71 this Court while dealing with Section 84C of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1976 held that though the said Section does not prescribe for any time limit for initiation of proceeding such power should be exercised within a reasonable time and on the facts of the case, the suo motu enquiry initiated under the said Section after a period of nine months was held to be beyond reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not exceed the period of five years.... In the decision in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 667 this Court while dealing with suo motu power of revision Under Section 50B(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 held as follows: 9. ... In the absence of necessary and sufficient particulars pleaded as regards fraud and the date or period of discovery of fraud and more so when the contention that the suo motu power could be exercised within a reasonable period from the date of discovery of fraud was not urged, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were right in not examining the question of fraud alleged to have been committed by the non-official Respondents. Use of the words at any time in Sub-section (4) of Section 50B of the Act only indicates that no specific period of limitation is prescribed within which the suo motu power could be exercised reckoning or starting from a particular date advisedly and contextually. Exercise of suo motu power depended on facts and circumstances of each case. In cases of fraud, this power could be exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the said record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. The said Regulation of 1358-F was in vogue till it was repealed by the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, which came into force on 15.8.1978. In the 2nd edition (1997) of The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer (at page 1053) 'Khasra' is described as follows: Khasra is a register recording the incidents of a tenure and is a historical record. Khasra would serve the purpose of a deed of title, when there is no other title deed. 10. Admittedly, the names of the predecessors in title of the Respondents are found mentioned in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55 pertaining to Survey Nos. 36 and 37 of Gopanpally village. The purchase of the said lands by the Respondents from them under registered sale deeds are also not seriously disputed. The further fact is that they have been regularly paying land revenue continuously since the year 1954. The Appellants herein issued the impugned notice dated 31.12.2004 Under Section 166B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F (1907) for cancellation of entries in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1953-54, by fixing the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 12 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for a declaration that they were lawful owners and possessors of certain plots of land in survey No. 36, and after contest, the suit was decreed and said decree is allowed to become final. By the impugned Notice dated 31.12.2004 the suo motu revision power Under Regulation 166B referred above is sought to be exercised after five decades and if it is allowed to do so it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties over immovable properties. 12. In the light of what is stated above we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in affirming the view of the learned single Judge of the High Court that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law. 13. Thus, we find no merit in these appeals. Consequently they are dismissed with no order as to costs. T.S. Thakur, J. 14. I have had the privilege of reading the order propose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-55 reflected the names of the predecessors-in-title of the writ-Petitioners although according to the Government the said entries were made fraudulently by the then Patwari of the village. The High Court further held that since the entries showing ownership and possession of the writ-Petitioners had continued unchallenged for nearly 40 years before the Government issued G.O. Ms. 850 Rev. (Asn. III) Dept. dated 24th September, 1991 the Government was not justified in making any allotment in disregard of the same. The High Court also took the view that the proposed correction of the alleged fraudulent entries nearly 50 years after the entries were first made was also legally impermissible even when the revisional power being invoked to do so did not prescribe any period of limitation. The High Court recorded a finding that the predecessors-in-title of the writ-Petitioners had registered sale-deeds in their favour and that the State Government or its officers had not denied that the writ-Petitioners or their predecessors-in-title had remained in possession of the subject land. The High Court held that exercise of revisional powers, even where no period of limitation is prescribed, m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the power is concerned which ought to be permissible only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period. 19. In one of the earlier decisions of this Court in S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India 1976 (2) SCC 181, this Court held that exercise of suo motu power of revision must also be within a reasonable time and that any unreasonable delay in the exercise may affect the validity. But what would constitute reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each case. 20. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham V.K. Suresh Reddy and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 667 where this Court held that even in cases of fraud the revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable period and that several factors need to be kept in mind while deciding whether relief sooner be denied only on the ground of delay. The Court said: In cases of fraud, this power could be exercised within a reasonable time from the date of detection or discovery of fraud. While exercising such power, several factors need to be kept in mind such as effect on the rights of the third parties over the immovable property due to passage of considerable time, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the reasonable time within which the power of suo motu action could be exercised. For example, in this case, as the appeal had been withdrawn but the Financial Commissioner had taken up the matter in exercise of his suo motu power, it could well be open for the State to submit that the facts and circumstances were such that it would be within reasonable time but as we have already noted that the order of the Collector which has been interfered with was passed in January 1976 and the appeal preferred by the State was also withdrawn sometime in March 1976. The learned Counsel for the Appellant was not able to point out such other special facts and circumstances by reason of which it could be said that exercise of suo motu power after 15 years of the order interfered with was within a reasonable time. That being the position in our view, the order of the Financial Commissioner stands vitiated having been passed after a long lapse of 15 years of the order which has been interfered with. Therefore, while holding that the Financial Commissioner would have power to proceed suo motu in a suitable case even though an appeal preferred before the lower appellate authority is withdrawn, may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority. 25. In the case at hand, while the entry sought to be corrected is described as fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice impugned before the High Court as to when was the alleged fraud discovered by the State. A specific statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
