http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  10787-10795 of 1996

PETITIONER: Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Collie Sangham                     

RESPONDENT: Vs. K.Suresh Reddy & Ors.                            

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/08/2003

BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil & [D.M. Dharmadhikari.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO.            OF 2003 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16875 of 1996)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1891 OF 1998

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1892 OF 1998 Shivaraj V. Patil J.

Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10795 of 1996

       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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

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."  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

                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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

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:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

"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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

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.