2003 (2) TMI 518 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court remits case for fresh review, emphasizes comprehensive consideration.

The Supreme Court remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration by the Division Bench, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review ... - Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are the validity of the cancellation order u/s 166(B) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1950, the applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and the determination of a reasonable period for initiating action.Validity of Cancellation Order:The District Collector initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, due to irregular assignments and violations of stipulations under the Special Loani Rules. The order of cancellation was challenged before the High Court, which directed the petitioners to submit objections within two months for fresh adjudication. The Division Bench later set aside the cancellation order, citing a lack of a reasonable time limit for initiating action.Applicability of Prohibition Act:The State argued that the Prohibition Act applied to assignments made before and after its commencement in 1977, emphasizing the need for cancellation due to illegal assignments. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the Act only pertained to assignments made by the Government, not those made under the Rules by the Nizam. The disagreement centered on whether a 30-year period was reasonable for initiating action under the Act.Determining a Reasonable Period:The debate over what constitutes a reasonable period for initiating action under the Prohibition Act was a key point of contention. The State highlighted the absence of a rigid formula for determining the timeframe, while the respondents argued that 30 years could not be considered reasonable. Reference was made to legal precedents emphasizing the need to assess reasonableness based on the specific circumstances of each case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench had not fully considered all relevant aspects, focusing primarily on the delay in initiating action. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh consideration by the Division Bench, allowing both parties to present their arguments comprehensively. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, aiming to expedite the resolution of the dispute and avoid prolonged litigation.