Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham vs K. Suresh Reddy

In all these appeals, the following question of law arises

for consideration:-

"Whether Collector can exercise suo-motu power

under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural

Land Act, 1950 at any time or such power is to be

exercised within a reasonable time."

Broadly stated, the facts leading to filing of these

appeals are the following:-

Various sale deeds were executed by owners of the lands in

favour of different persons on plain papers. Pursuant to said

deeds, possession of lands was also delivered to the vendees.

Parties to the sale deeds filed applications under Section 50-B

of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural

Land Act, 1950 (for short `the Act`) for validation of sales.

Concerned Tahsildar issued validation certificates on various

dates. Orders of Tahsildar issuing validation certificates were

challenged in appeals filed by Special Tahsildar and Authorised

Officer (Land Reforms) before the Joint Collector of the District

but those appeals were dismissed in 1988. Thereafter, the Joint

Collector issued show-cause notices purporting to exercise suo-

motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act to

the vendors and the vendees to show cause as to why validation

certificates issued in 1974 or earlier should not be cancelled.

After considering the objections filed in response to the show

cause notices, Joint Collector of Rangareddy District set aside

the validation certificates in 1989. Challenging these orders of

Joint Collector, some of the parties filed revision petitions and

some of them filed writ petitions before the High Court. Learned

Single Judge of the High Court, after hearing the parties,

allowed the revision petitions as well as writ petitions and set

aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector passed in exercise

of his suo-motu jurisdiction under Section 50-B(4) of the Act,

taking a view that the suo-motu power of revision under sub-

section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act should have been exercised

within reasonable period although the said sub-section says that

suo-motu power could be exercised at any time. In that view, he

held that the Joint Collector was not correct in law in

canceling the validation certificates issued by the Tahsildar.

Before the learned Single Judge, Ibraham Patnam Taluk Vyavasaya

Coolie Sangham, the appellant in all these appeals, got impleaded

as one of the respondents. It appears that on the

complaint/information given by the appellant, the Joint Collector

initiated proceedings under Section 50-B(4) invoking suo-motu

power. The appellant in all these appeals aggrieved by and not

satisfied with, filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of

the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed

the writ appeals except Writ Appeal No. 1300 of 1993, concurring

with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. As far as

Appeal No. 1300 of 1993 was concerned, the Division Bench set

aside the validation certificate as some discrepancy was found as

to the date of application for issuance of the validation

certificate and the date of sale. It was contended that some

fraud was played. Since the parties did not produce documents,

the Division Bench set aside the validation certificate and

permitted the respondent in the appeal to present before the

Joint Collector a representation within two months. Under these

circumstances, the appellants are in appeal before this Court

challenging the validity and correctness of the common order

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the

order of the learned Single Judge.

It would be useful to see the relevant provisions of the

Act in order to appreciate the respective contentions advanced on

behalf of the parties. Section 50-B of the Act reads:-

"50-B. Validation of certain alienations and

other transfer of Agricultural lands:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in

this Chapter, where any alienation or other

transfer of agricultural land took place-

(a) on or after the 10th June, 1950, but

before the date of coming into force of

the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on

Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 and where

possession of such land was given to the

alienee or tranferee before such date of

coming into force; and

(b) on or after the coming into force of the

Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural

Holdings Act, 1961, but before the date

of the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh

(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural

Lands (Third Amendment) Act, 1969 and

where possession of such land was given

to the alienee or transferee before such

commencement and such alienation or

transfer is not inconsistent with the

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling

on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961;

the alienee or transferee may, within such

period as may be prescribed, apply to the

Tahsildar for a certificate declaring that such

alienation or transfer is valid.

(2) On receipt of such application, the

Tahsildar shall after making such enquiry as

may be prescribed and after satisfying himself

that the consideration, if any, payable to the

alienor or the transferor has been paid or has

been deposited within such time and in such

manner as may be prescribed, require the

alienee or the transferee to deposit in the

office of the Tahsildar an amount equal to the

registration fees and the stamp duty that would

have been payable had the alienation or

transfer been effected by a registered document

in accordance with the provisions of the Indian

Registration Act, 1908. On the deposit of such

amount, the Tahsildar shall issue a certificate

to the alienee or the transferee declaring that

the alienation or transfer is valid and such

certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in

the Indian Registration Act, 1908, be

conclusive evidence of such alienation or

transfer as against the alienor or transferor

or any person claiming interest under him.

Provided that where an alienation or

transfer has been effected by a registered

document, the Tahsildar shall adjust the amount

paid by the alienee or transferee as

registration fee and the stamp duty towards the

amount required to be deposited under this sub-

section; and if the amount so paid by the

alienee or transferee is less than the amount

required to be deposited by him, the Tahsildar

shall require him to deposit the balance."

(3) The validation of any alienation or

transfer of any land under sub-section (2)

shall not affect the right accrued to any

person under Section 37-A or Section 38 or

Section 38-E.

(4) The Collector may, suo-motu at any

time, call for and examine the record relating

to any certificate issued or proceedings taken

by the Tahsildar under this section for the

purpose of satisfying himself as to the

legality or propriety of such certificate or as

the regularity of such proceedings and pass

such order in relation thereto as he may think

fit:

Provided that no order adversely affecting

any person shall be passed under this sub-

section unless such person has had an

opportunity of making his representation

thereto."

Section 50-B of the Act was inserted by Act No. 6 of 1964.

Subsequently, sub-section (4) of Section 50-B was inserted by Act

No. II of 1979. The Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on

Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 came into force on 1.1.1975.

The Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition and

Alienation) Act, 1972 is deemed to have come into force on

22.5.1972. There was prohibition of alienation of holding under

the said Act. As per Section 5, no person who was holding as on

the date of commencement of the said Act or at any time

thereafter exceeded the specified limit shall alienate such

holding or any part thereof and any transfer made in

contravention of the said Section shall be null and void.

Section 50-B was inserted in the Act by A.P. (Telangana Area)

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act VI of

1964). In Section 50-B, there were three sub-sections. Under

Section 50-B(1) notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter V

of the Act where any alienation or other transfer of agricultural

land took place on or after 10.6.1950, but before 21.2.1961, and

where possession of such land was given to the alinee or

transferee before 21.2.1961, he may, within one year from such

date as may be prescribed apply to the Tahsildar for a

certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid.

This period was extended further from time to time.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons given in the Bill

leading to Act No. VI of 1964 reads:

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

"Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana

Areaa) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1950, which is in force in the Telangana Area

of this State as it stood prior to its

amendment by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana

Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands

(Amendment) Act, 1959, provided that no

permanent alienation or other transfer of

agricultural land shall be valid unless it was

made with the previous sanction of the

Collector. In actual practice, however, the

requirement of this section and also sections

48 and 49 had not been complied with, and

alienations and transfers had been effected on

a considerable scale without the previous

permission of the Collector, by means of oral

agreement, unregistered documents, etc.

2. In the year 1953, the former

Government of Hyderabad undertook land census

operations throughout the erstwhile State of

Hyderabad. In consonance with the objective of

the land census, the names of persons in actual

possession of lands were entered in the Land

Census records without reference to their

lawful title thereto. In the light of the

experience gained during the census operations,

it was considered that the record prepared for

the land census should form the basis for the

Record of Rights and that, with a view to

ensuring the up-to-date maintenance of the

Record of Rights, it should be integrated with

the annual (Jamabandi) accounts. For this

purpose, the former Government of Hyderabad

authorized the preparation of a comprehensive

village account, called the "Khasra Pahani

Patrak" which was to be an integrated record

relating to Land Census, Record of Rights, and

the annual Revenue Accounts. The preparation

of the record created a mistaken impression in

the public that the government recognized the

sales that had taken place in contravention of

the relevant statutes. Instructions were

therefore issued on the 14th May, 1957 to the

effect that the Subordinate Revenue Officers

might take suo-motu action to omit from the

Record of Rights the names of persons who had

already been recorded therein as occupants but

whose possession was not lawful. Consequent on

the issue of these instructions,

representations have been received that their

implementation would result in great hardship,

particularly as the lands in many cases were

sold by landlords to tenants, in view of the

current and impending Land Reform Measures.

3. Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh

Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961,

enacts that no person whose holding is in

excess of the ceiling area on the date on which

the assent of the President to the Act is first

published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, namely

the 21st February, 1961, shall alienate his

holding or any part thereof until the

requirements specified in that section are

fulfilled. The government have therefore

decided that alienations or other transfers of

agricultural land that took place on or after

the 10th June, 1950, (the date on which the

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, came into force),

but before the 21st February 1961, without

obtaining the previous sanction of the

Collector or the Tahsildar as required under

sub-section (1) of section 47 of the said Act,

should be validated by the issue of a

certificate by the Tahsildar on an application

filed before him within one year from the date

of coming into effect of the proposed

legislation, if possession of such land was

given to the alienee or transferee before the

21st February 1961 and if the alienee or the

transferee deposits in the office of the

Tahsildar an amount equal to the registration

fees and the stamp duty that would have been

payable had the alienation or transfer been

effected by a registered document. It is also

proposed to provide that the Tahsildar shall

also satisfy himself before the issue of the

certificate that the alienee has paid the

consideration, if any, payable to the alienor

or has deposited the same within such time and

in such manner as may be prescribed."

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

suo-motu revisional power exercised by the Joint Collector under

Sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act was fully justified,

in the absence of prescription of period of limitation for the

exercise of suo-motu power; such power could be exercised at any

time as per the said sub-section; the concept of reasonable time

cannot be imported into the said provision; as such the exercise

of suo-motu power even after fifteen years by the Joint Collector

was valid and justified. The Tehsildar had issued certificates

validating the transactions without following proper procedure

and he had acted with material irregularity in issuing validation

certificates; the validation certificates were obtained by the

non-official respondents fraudulently to defeat the provisions of

the Land Ceiling Act, 1961.

In opposition, the learned counsel for the non-official

respondents strongly contended that the suo- motu power exercised

by the Joint Collector after a period of 13-15 years was wholly

arbitrary and illegal; even in the absence of prescription of

period of limitation under sub-Section (4) of Section 50-B of the

Act suo-motu power ought to be exercised within a reasonable

time; the use of the words 'at any time' in the said sub-Section

must be properly understood and construed, otherwise exercise of

such power after lapse of several years, may be after decades,

leads to arbitrary exercise of power resulting in serious

consequences unsettling the settled positions and may be in some

cases affect the rights of third parties; further, uncertainty

cannot be allowed to prevail indefinitely. It was further

contended that the appellants did not present their case either

before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench of

the High Court on the ground that the non-official respondents

had committed fraud in securing validation certificates and as

such period of limitation could be reckoned from the date of

discovery of fraud. The learned counsel also submitted that the

transfers of immoveable properties in question, made prior to

1972, could not be upset when several changes have taken place.

In some cases further transfers have taken place; the

declarations filed by the holders of the lands under the

provisions of the Land Ceiling Act and the orders passed thereon

have attained finality. According to the learned counsel, under

these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned

order of the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

It is evident from the order of the learned Single Judge

that the appellants did not urge that exercise of suo-motu power

was justified on account of the fraud committed by the non-

official respondents in obtaining the validation certificates and

that the power was exercised within reasonable period from date

of detection or discovery of fraud. In the light of the

contentions made on behalf of the parties the learned Single

Judge raised the following two questions for consideration: -

"(1) Whether exercise of suo-motu power under

sub-section 4 of Section 50B of the Act

has to be within the reasonable period

under the said provision, it can be

exercised at any time.

(2) Whether the order of the Joint Collector

canceling the validation certificates, is

correct in law."

Even before the Division Bench of the High Court in the

writ appeals, the appellants did not contend that the suo-motu

power could be exercised even after long delay of 13-15 years

because of the fraudulent acts of the non-official respondents.

The focus of attention before the Division Bench was only on the

language of sub-Section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act as to

whether the suo-motu power could be exercised at any time

strictly sticking to the language of that sub-Section or it could

be exercised within reasonable time. 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 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 50-B of the Act only

indicates that no specific period of limitation is prescribed

within which 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 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,

change of hands by subsequent bona fide transfers, the orders

attaining finality under the provisions of other Acts (such as

Land Ceiling Act). Hence, it appears without stating from what

date the period of limitation starts and within what period the

suo-motu powers is to be exercised, in sub-section (4) of Section

50-B of the Act, the words "at any time" are used so that the

suo-motu power could be exercised within reasonable period from

the date of discovery of fraud depending on facts and

circumstances of each case in the context of the statute and

nature of rights of parties. Use of the words "at any time" in

sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act cannot be rigidly read

letter by letter. It must be read and construed contextually and

reasonably. If one has to simply proceed on the basis of

dictionary meaning of words "at any time", the suo-motu power

under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act could be

exercised even after decades and then it would lead to anomalous

position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously

affecting the rights of the parties, that too, over immovable

properties. Orders attaining finality and certainty of the

rights of the parties accrued in the light of the orders passed

must have sanctity. Exercise of suo-motu power "at any time"

only means that no specific period such as days, months or years

are not prescribed reckoning from a particular date. But that

does not mean that "at any time" should be unguided and

arbitrary. In this view, "at any time" must be understood as

within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances

of each case in the absence of prescribed period of limitation.

This Court in a recent decision in D.Saibaba vs. Bar

Council of India & Anr. [(2003) 6 SCC 186], after referring and

quoting passages from Justice G.P.Singh's Principles of Statutory

Interpretation observed that "Reading word for word and assigning

a literal meaning to Section 48-AA would lead to absurdity,

futility and to such consequences as Parliament could have never

intended. The provision has an ambiguity and is capable of being

read in more ways than one. We must, therefore, assign the

provision a meaning - and so read it - as would give life to an

otherwise lifeless letter and enable the power of review

conferred thereby being meaningfully availed and effectively

exercised."

In Principles of Statutory Interpretation (8th Edn.,2001),

the author has stated thus:-

"It may look somewhat paradoxical that plain meaning

rule is not plain and requires some explanation. The

rule, that plain words require no construction,

starts with the premise that the words are plain,

which is itself a conclusion reached after construing

the words. It is not possible to decide whether

certain words are plain or ambiguous unless they are

studied in their context and construed."

The author has stated again as under:-

"In selecting out of different interpretations `the

court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and

sensible rather than that which is none of those

things', as it may be presumed `that the legislature

should have used the word in that interpretation

which least offends our sense of justice'."

The learned Single Judge has referred to and relied on various

decisions including the decisions of this Court as to how the use

of the words 'at any time' in sub-Section (4) of Section 50-B of

the Act should be understood. In the impugned order the Division

Bench of the High Court approves and affirms the decision of the

learned Single Judge. Where a statute provides any suo-motu

power of revision without prescribing any period of limitation,

the power must be exercised within a reasonable time and what is

'reasonable time' has to be determined on the facts of each case.

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 power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act

is to be exercised within a reasonable time.

It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons given

in the Bill leading to the Act No. VI of 1964 that as per Section

47 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands

(Amendment) Act, 1959, no permanent alienation or other transfer

of agricultural land shall be valid unless it was made with the

previous sanction of the Collector. But in practice the

requirements of Sections 47, 48 and 49 of the Act had not been

followed and alienations and transfers had been effected on a

considerable scale without the previous permission of the

Collector, by means of oral agreement, unregistered documents,

etc. The Government, in the year 1953 undertook land census

operations throughout the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. On the

basis of the census the names of the persons in actual possession

of lands were entered without reference to their lawful title

thereto. Preparation of the record on the basis of the census

created a mistaken impression in the public that the Government

recognized the sales that had taken place in contravention of the

relevant statutes. Therefore, instructions were issued on

14.5.1957 that the Subordinate Revenue Officers might take suo-

motu action to omit from the records the names of persons, who

had already been recorded therein as occupants but whose

possession was not lawful. Consequently representations had been

received that the implementation of those instructions would

result in great hardship, particularly, as the lands in many

cases were sold by the landlords to tenants, in view of the

current and impending land reform measures. Section 12 of the

Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1961 provided

that no person whose holding was in excess of the ceiling area on

the date on which the assent of the President to the Act was

first published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette of 21.2.1961 shall

alienate his holding or any part thereof until the requirements

specified in that Section were fulfilled. Under the

circumstances the Government decided that alienation or other

transfers of agricultural lands that took place on or after

10.6.1950 but before 21.2.1961, without obtaining the previous

sanction of the Collector under Section 47 of the Act should be

validated by the issue of a certificate by Tehsildar on an

application filed within one year from the date of coming into

effect of the proposed Legislation, if possession of such land

was given to the alienee or transferee before 21.2.1961 and if

the alienee or transferee deposits in the office of the Tehsildar

an amount equal to the registration fee and the stamp duty that

would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been

effected by a registered document.

The learned Single Judge has noticed that in Telangana area

of the State there had been in vogue the practice of executing

the sale deeds on plain papers to record the transactions of

sale. This fact was even taken note by Act VI of 1964 when

Section 50-B was inserted in the Act. This Section originally

provided a period of one year for validation of sale deeds, which

was later extended to three years by Act 11 of 1965. Again, by

Act 12 of 1967 the period was extended to four years and later to

six years by Act 19 of 1968. Later by Act No. 12 of 1969 sub-

Section (1) was substituted and a proviso was added to sub-

Section (2). Sub-Section (4) of the said Section with which we

are concerned in these cases was inserted by Act No. 12 of 1979.

The learned Single Judge recorded in his order, "Now coming

to the second point, it has already been pointed out above, the

period of validation was extended from time to time from

31.3.1972. The Joint Collector recorded a finding of fact that

the possession of the land in question was given in 1965, but

however held that as the possession was not transferred to the

vendee on or before 21.2.1961, and the application for validation

was made on 24.3.1972, the validation certificate is illegal.

Admittedly the application was made within the extended time.

The transaction of sale which was validated, was entered into in

1965 and pursuant to it possession was also given in 1965, as

such validation certificate cannot be held to be bad in law. For

these reasons the orders questioned in the C.R.Ps and the W.Ps

cannot be sustained even on merits."

The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order

dealing with the second question set out in the order of the

learned Single Judge, while confirming the finding observed,

thus: -

"So far as the second question is concerned,

there is also no scope for interference.

Admittedly, the time for filing the

applications stood extended till March, 1972

and the applications for validation

certificates were made prior to that. It is

urged before us that the Joint Collector in his

order found the alienations to have been made

to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act,

1973. The submission is that acceptable since

the requirement of Section 50B is that the

alienations, to justify cancellation of the

validation certificates, must have been made

inconsistent with the provisions of the Ceiling

Act, 1961. The transactions of sale having

taken place in the year 1965 and possession

having been handed over then, the respondents

could not have purchased the lands and the

other respondents could not have sold those

lands to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling

Act, 1973. It is submitted that because of the

provisions of Section 18 of the A.P. General

Clauses Act, the reference of the Ceiling Act,

1961 in Section 50B should be read as referring

to the Ceiling Act, 1973. We are unable to

agree to such interpretation and application of

Section 18 of the General Clauses Act. When

the law specifically says that a certificate

should be refused only if the transactions had

been made inconsistent with the provisions of

the Ceiling Act, 1961 and such provision was

made in the context of validating sales, which

had been effected between the two periods of

time stipulated in sub-Section 1(A) and (B) of

Section 50B the inconsistency referred to have

to be construed as relating to only the Ceiling

Act, 1961 and not the Ceiling Act, 1973."

From these findings of fact recorded by the learned Single

Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the High Court that the

certificates issued by the Tehsildar were valid and the order of

the Joint Collector canceling the validation certificates was not

correct in law, we have good reason to agree with the conclusion

arrived at by the High Court on this question.

It is also necessary to note that suo-motu power was sought

to be exercised by the Joint Collector after 13-15 years.

Section 50-B was amended in the year 1979 by adding sub-Section

(4), but no action was taken to invalidate the certificates in

exercise of suo-motu power till 1989. There is no convincing

explanation as to why the authorities waited for such a long

time. It appears that sub-Section (4) was added so as to take

action where alienations or transfers were made to defeat the

provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. The Land Ceiling Act having

come into force on 1.1.1975, the authorities should have made

inquiries and efforts so as to exercise suo-motu power within

reasonable time. The action of the Joint Collector in exercising

suo-motu power after several years and not within reasonable

period and passing orders canceling validation certificates given

by Tehsildar, as rightly held by the High Court, could not be

sustained.

The non-official respondents have taken stand that they had

filed declarations before the Ceiling authorities under the Land

Ceiling Act, 1973 showing the lands in question as their holdings

and the orders were passed on such declarations; unsettling such

position may mean even reopening the ceiling proceedings, which

have become final long back. The Division Bench of the High

Court in this regard in the impugned order has observed that

"Exercise of such power after 14 to 15 years is ipso facto

unreasonable. There is absolute no explanation before us as to

why though Section 50B was amended in the year 1979, the Joint

Collector waited till 1989 to invoke the power. Every man has

the legitimate expectation of regarding a set of things, or facts

which have continued over a period of time, to have become

settled so that he can plan his future course of action on the

basis of such acceptable situation. Unsettling such facts after

long delay upsets not only his entire programme but also affects

in the long run the society itself. Even in the present case,

the respondents have taken the stand that they filed returns

before the ceiling authorities under the Ceiling Act, 1973,

showing these lands as their holdings and that such plea had been

upheld. Unsettling such position may mean even reopening the

ceiling proceedings which must have become final long time back.

In that view of the matter, we agree with the observations of the

learned Single Judge in that respect."

The appellant is a society of agricultural labourers and

their interest is that if the validation certificates are set

aside, the non official respondents will have to surrender excess

land held by them and in that event they would apply for

assignment of the lands to the Government and they have a chance

of the land to be assigned to them. It is thus clear that the

interest of the appellant is remote. Hence, it may not be

appropriate to interfere with the impugned order passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order of the

learned Single Judge on the facts found. Further, the State or

authorities of the State are not in appeal before this Court.

Against the order passed by the Joint Collector canceling

the validation certificates issued by the Tehsildar exercising

suo-motu power under sub-Section (4) of Section 50B of the Act,

some parties filed civil revision petitions and some filed writ

petitions before the High Court. The learned Single Judge passed

the common order allowing the civil revision petitions and writ

petitions setting aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector.

The appellant filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.______/1994 (CC

No. 27066) before this Court challenging the validity of the

orders passed by the learned Single Judge in civil revision

petitions. The appellant also filed writ appeals against the

very common order of the learned Single Judge before the Division

Bench of the High Court, which were dismissed by the impugned

order. The special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn on

the ground that the appellant would agitate the matters in the

writ appeals, which were pending in the High Court.

Having regard to all aspects that have come to light in

these appeals and that too at this length of time, we do not

think it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order. Thus

we find no merit in these appeals. Consequently, they are

dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Office Report dated 14.7.2003 shows that some of the

respondents have died and some of them have not been served with

notice but the appellant had not taken necessary steps to bring

the LRs on record and to serve the unserved respondents.

Civil Appeal No. of 2003

(@ S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16875 of 1996)

Leave granted.

The order passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10795 of 1996

governs this case also. Hence no separate order is needed to be

passed in this case. Accordingly it is disposed of. No costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1891 and 1892 of 1998

These two appeals are directed against the common order

passed by the High Court in two Civil Revision Petitions No. 2722

and 2935 of 1991, one filed by the vendor and the other filed by

the vendee. The facts of these cases also are similar to the

facts broadly set out in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10795 of 1996.

Unlike in the other appeals, in these appeals the revision

petitions filed by the vendors and vendees of the lands in

question were dismissed by the High Court affirming the order

passed by the Joint Collector exercising the suo-motu power under

Section 50-B(4) of the Act. In the order under challenge,

learned Single Judge of the High Court, setting out the facts and

contentions in sufficient details, held that the order passed by

the Joint Collector against these appellants was valid and

justified. On the question of exercise of suo-motu power within

the reasonable time, the High Court found that the suo-motu power

could be exercised to take action within reasonable time from the

date the fraud was detected or discovered. According to the

learned Judge of the High Court, the suo-motu power was exercised

by the Joint Collector within a reasonable time from the date of

discovering the fraud in this case. In the result, the

validation certificates issued in favour of the appellants as

cancelled by the Joint Collector is affirmed by the High Court.

The learned counsel appearing on either side in their

arguments reiterated the submissions that were made before the

High Court. Their arguments were similar to the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in Civil Appeal

Nos. 10787-10795 of 1996 as regards question of limitation is

concerned.

These appeals stand on a different footing inasmuch as the

question of fraud in obtaining the validation certificates and

the validity of transfers was specifically raised. The learned

Single Judge in the impugned order has taken pains to narrate the

facts in sufficient details and has considered the respective

contentions advanced on behalf of either side and recorded a

finding that the fraud alleged against the appellants was

established. The learned Single Judge also referred to the

common order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Revision

Petitions No. 3095, 3096, 3099, 3197, 3198, 3199, 3200, 3203 and

3100 of 1989 and Writ Petition Nos. 13565, 13566, 13567, 13568,

13569 and 13603 of 1989 and as well as the orders passed by the

Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos. 929, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301,

1332, 1337, 1507 and 1508 of 1993, which are the subject matter

of afore-mentioned Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10795 of 1996. The

learned Single Judge has distinguished those cases stating that

in these appeals, as noted above, the fraud alleged against the

appellants was established and the action was taken exercising

suo-motu power within a reasonable time having regard to the

facts and circumstances of the case that came to the light.

In the light of these findings of fact recorded by the

learned Single Judge based on material placed on record and

supported by cogent reasons, we do not find any valid reason or

good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently

these appeals are liable to be dismissed. Hence they are

dismissed. No costs.