TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue authorities cannot cancel land assignments without proving fraud after decades of possession</h1> <h3>Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Government of Telangana and Ors. Versus P. Govind Reddy and Ors.</h3> Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Government of Telangana and Ors. Versus P. Govind Reddy and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the order dated 09.04.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 166-B(3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F.2. Allegations of fraud and manipulation in the assignment and transfer of the subject land.3. The applicability of Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act regarding the cancellation of supplementary sethwar after a significant lapse of time.4. The rights of bona fide purchasers under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.Summary:1. Legitimacy of the order dated 09.04.2008:The writ petitioners challenged the order dated 09.04.2008, which granted permission to the District Collector to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of supplementary sethwar in respect of the subject land. The learned Single Judge quashed the proceedings, noting that the exercise of revisional power after fifteen years was erroneous. The Supreme Court upheld the striking off of the Commissioner (Appeals) as an appellant and found the suo motu impleadment of the State of Telangana as improper.2. Allegations of fraud and manipulation:The appellants contended that the subject land was government land and that the assignments were fraudulent, created in connivance with lower revenue officials. The learned Single Judge found no concrete evidence of fraud, and the Director (Appeals) in the order dated 09.04.2008 also concluded that the grounds for cancellation were not logically proved. The Supreme Court emphasized that mere suspicion of fraud is insufficient and must be established with concrete evidence.3. Applicability of Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act:Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act allows for the revision of orders or decisions by higher authorities. However, the Supreme Court in Joint Collector v. D. Narasing Rao (2015) 3 SCC 695 held that even when no limitation period is prescribed, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. The learned Single Judge found that the exercise of revisional power after fifteen years was unreasonable and arbitrary.4. Rights of bona fide purchasers:The writ petitioners, as bona fide purchasers for consideration, were found to have acted in good faith after investigating the title and revenue records. Under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, their title and possession were protected. The learned Single Judge upheld their rights, noting that the assignments and subsequent transfers were not cancelled, and third-party rights had crystallized over time.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming the learned Single Judge's judgment that quashed the order dated 09.04.2008 and protected the rights of the writ petitioners as bona fide purchasers. The allegations of fraud were not substantiated with concrete evidence, and the exercise of revisional power after a significant lapse of time was deemed unreasonable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
