2015 (1) TMI 1411 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court dismisses appeals challenging delayed exercise of revisional power under A.P. Land Revenue Act

Jt. Collector Ranga Reddy Versus D. Narsing Rao

Jt. Collector Ranga Reddy Versus D. Narsing Rao - (2015) 3 SCC 695 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the exercise of suo motu revisional power after a long lapse of time.2. Validity of entries in the Khasra Pahani and their alleged fraudulent nature.3. Rights of the parties based on continuous possession and registered sale deeds.4. Impact of delay on the exercise of revisional powers by the government.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the exercise of suo motu revisional power after a long lapse of time:The court examined whether the suo motu revisional power under Section 166B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F (1907) could be exercised after a period of 50 years. The judgment highlighted that no time limit is prescribed for the exercise of this power, but the court emphasized that such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. The court cited several precedents, including *State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha* and *State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.*, to support the principle that even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, revisional power should be exercised within a reasonable period. The court concluded that exercising the power after five decades was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law.2. Validity of entries in the Khasra Pahani and their alleged fraudulent nature:The court noted that the names of the predecessors in title of the respondents were found mentioned in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55. The appellants contended that these entries were made fraudulently by the then Patwari without any order from the competent authority. The court, however, pointed out that these entries had remained unchallenged for nearly 40 years before the government issued the order in 1991 to reserve the land for house sites for government employees. The court held that the proposed correction of the alleged fraudulent entries nearly 50 years after they were made was legally impermissible, even when the revisional power being invoked did not prescribe any period of limitation.3. Rights of the parties based on continuous possession and registered sale deeds:The respondents claimed to have acquired rights over the land based on continuous possession and registered sale deeds from their predecessors. The court observed that the respondents had been regularly paying land revenue since 1954 and that substantial rights had accrued to them due to their continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. The court upheld the findings of the High Court that the respondents' predecessors-in-title had registered sale deeds in their favor and that the state government had not denied their possession of the land. The court concluded that the exercise of revisional powers after such a long lapse of time was arbitrary and unjustified.4. Impact of delay on the exercise of revisional powers by the government:The court emphasized that delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because it leads to uncertainty in human affairs and affects the rights of third parties. The court cited several precedents, including *S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India* and *Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy*, to support the principle that even in cases of fraud, revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable period. The court noted that the government had every occasion to verify the revenue entries while passing the order in 1991 but did not take any exception to the entries found. The court concluded that the notice issued in 2004, seeking to reverse the entries made in 1954-55, was beyond reasonable time and was rightly quashed by the High Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the view of the High Court that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law. The court held that the revisional powers vested in the Joint Collector under Section 166B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act could not be exercised 50 years after the alleged fraudulent entries were made. The court left open the possibility for the state to take other steps or proceedings in accordance with the law concerning the land in question.