IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:535 of 2002 Between: 1 V. Kondal Rao S/o Rama Rao R/o Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. 2 M. Srinivas Reddy S/o Narayan Reddy R/o Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. 3 V. Ranga Rao S/o Rajeswar Rao R/o Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. 4 M. Devender S/o Balaiah R/o Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. 5 R. Ashok S/o Buchaiah R/o Velmela Village, R.C. Puram, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Joint Collector, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Mandal Revenue Officer, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of certiorari to quash order, dated 31.12.2001 passed by respondent No.3 - Joint Collector, Medak District, Sanga Reddy, whereby he cancelled the entries contained in the Record of Rights and the pahanies in respect of land admeasuring Acs.23.38 guntas in Survey No.203/2 of Kalvakunta Village. The petitioners claim that one Sri P.Narasimha Rao was the absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned land; that from 1940, he had been paying the land revenue to the Government; that one Mohammad Bilal got his name recorded as pattadar in the revenue records of 1947-48 and that the said Bilal alienated the property to one Ramakrishna Reddy. It is the case of the petitioners that when the said Ramakrishna Reddy tried to interfere with the possession of Sri P.Narasimha Rao, the latter ﬁled O.S.No.33 of 1965 in the Court of District Munsif, Sanga Reddy. The said suit was re- numbered as O.S.No.7 of 1972 by the District Munsif, Adloor and was decreed. In the said suit, the revenue oﬃcials were summoned as witnesses, who deposed in favour of the said P.Narasimha Rao. A.S.No.1 of 1973 ﬁled against the said judgment was dismissed by the District Judge, Medak and Second Appeal No.805 of 1974 ﬁled in this Court also resulted in its dismissal and conﬁrmation of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The said Ramakrishna Reddy ﬁled O.S.No.22 of 1978 seeking recovery of possession from the said P.Narasimha Rao in the Court of Additional District Judge, Medak, who also dismissed the said suit vide his judgment, dated 21.03.1979, which has become ﬁnal. It is averred that in the said suit, the Civil Court gave a ﬁnding that the pahani patrikas and the land revenue records produced by the defendant showed that he was in possession of the suit land right from 1961-62 and that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. It is further averred that the said property was attached in 1963 in view of non-payment of land revenue and after some litigation, the Government released the said property in favour of the said P.Narasimha Rao in 1969. It is also averred that after conclusion of the litigation, the said P.Narasimha Rao made an application to respondent No.2 to delete the name of Md.Bilal from the revenue records and accordingly, his name was deleted; that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the said Narasimha Rao to purchase 16 acres out of Acs.23.38 guntas of land and that after the death of Narasimha Rao, when his legal heirs failed to perform their part of obligations under the agreement, the petitioners ﬁled O.S.No.17 of 1996 for speciﬁc performance and a compromise decree was passed therein. When the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy took objection to register the property stating that the same belongs to the Government, the petitioners approached respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Sanga Reddy, who on a thorough enquiry, wrote letter, dated 07.12.1998 to the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy stating that it is not a Government land and is a patta land and, therefore, the sale deed could be registered. Thereafter, the sale deed was registered. The petitioners contended that out of the land of an extent of Acs.16.00, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 sold an extent of Acs.8.00 of land under registered sale deed in favour of petitioner No.5 and that they applied for a layout but the same was rejected by the competent authority. They questioned the said issue by ﬁling WP.No.2989 of 1999 and in pursuance of the interim order granted therein, layout was sanctioned. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued notice, dated 22.01.1999 to the petitioners to the eﬀect that it is an assigned land and, therefore, the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. While the petitioners submitted their explanation to the said notice, respondent No.3 initiated parallel proceedings by issuing show cause notice, dated 08.02.2000 purporting to exercise his suo motu power under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners ﬁled Writ Petition No.3388 of 2000, which was initially admitted and stay granted, but later it was disposed of by order, dated 05.12.2000 directing the petitioners to participate in the enquiry. Respondent No.3 passed order, dated 31.12.2001, the legality and validity of which is assailed in this writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, all the above-mentioned facts relating to the previous litigation between P.Narasimha Rao and Ramakrishna Reddy have been admitted. The fact that respondent No.2 - Collector, Medak made endorsement, dated 26.02.1980 on the application ﬁled by the petitioners for amendment of entries in the Record of Rights is also admitted. He had, however, taken the plea that no title was vested in Sri P.Narasimha Rao and that he misused his possession as Mali Patel and got his name entered in the revenue records illegally. In eﬀect, he reiterated the reasons contained in the impugned order. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. In his order, respondent No.3 framed the following points: (i) Whether the present proceedings are beyond the period of limitation or a reasonable time. (ii) Whether the present proceedings are without jurisdiction. (iii) Whether the order dated 08.02.2000 cancelling the assignment made to Md.Bilal is valid. (iv) Whether the issue of title or acquisition of title to the subject matter by adverse possession was tried and adjudicated in O.S.No.9/72 on the ﬁle of District Munsif Court, Andole and O.S.No.22/78 on the ﬁle Additional District Judge, Medak. (v) Whether the judgments and decrees in O.S.9/72 on the ﬁle of the District Munsif, Andole at Jogipet and O.S.No.22/78 on the ﬁle of Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy are judgments in rem and binding on government. (vi) Whether the entries in ROR in favour of the legal heirs / successors in interest of Narsimha Rao are valid. On point No.1, he held that though the suo motu revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised within a reasonable time, in view of exceptional situation, where P.Narasimha Rao being Mali Patel, got his name entered in the revenue records, the case falls within the exceptions recognized by the Courts and, therefore, initiation of proceedings after long lapse of time is legal and valid. On point No.2, he held that endorsement, dated 26.02.1980, of respondent No.3 did not contain any speciﬁc direction to change the entries in the Record of Rights. On point No.3, he held that the petitioners have no locus to question the cancellation of assignment said to have been made in favour of Md.Bilal. On point Nos.4 and 5, he held that the ﬁndings recorded by the Civil Court in O.S.Nos.9 of 1972 and 22 of 1978 and A.S.No.1 of 1973 were conﬁned between the parties inter se to the legal proceedings and that the Government not being a party, the same do not operate as judgments in rem. On point No.6 (wrongly shown as point No.5), he held that the legal heirs/successors in interest of Narasimha Rao did not establish any right or title over the property justifying the entries contained in the Record of Rights. In the manner, in which, I am proposing to dispose of the writ petition, I ﬁnd it not necessary to refer to and deal with all the points, on which, the above-mentioned ﬁndings have been rendered by respondent No.3. One ground, on which, the petitioners are entitled to truly succeed, is that initiation of suo motu revisional proceedings under Section 9 of the Act after a long lapse of time is not permissible in law. In a plethora of judgments, the Supreme Court and this Court laid down that even though the statute has not prescribed any time limit to exercise suo motu revisional powers, the authority conferred with such power is bound to exercise the same within a reasonable time. I n Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K.Suresh Reddy and others[1], the Supreme Court considered the scope of the suo motu revisional power under Section 50-B (4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the 1950 Act’). The relevant facts involved in the said case need to be stated in this context. Various sale deeds were executed by several persons on plain paper and possession was delivered to the vendees. The vendees ﬁled applications under Section 50-B of the 1950 Act for validation of sales. The Tahsildar issued validation certificates. These certiﬁcates were challenged in the appeals ﬁled by the Special Tahsildar and the Authorised Oﬃcer (Land Reforms), before the Joint Collector of the District. The said appeals were dismissed in 1988. Thereafter, the Joint Collector issued notices purporting to exercise suo motu power under Section 50-B (4) of the 1950 Act to the vendors and the vendees to show cause why the validation certiﬁcates issued in 1984 or earlier should not be cancelled. After considering the objections ﬁled by the vendors and the vendees, the Joint Collector set aside the validation certiﬁcates in 1989. Against the said orders, some persons ﬁled revisions and others writ petitions before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions on the ground that the suo motu power of revision should have been exercised within a reasonable period, though the statutory provision does not impose any time limit for exercise of such power. The matter was carried in appeal before a Division Bench. The Division Bench while conﬁrming the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissed the Writ Appeal. I n Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K.Suresh Reddy and others[2], the Division Bench reiterated the principle that if power is conferred on an authority to exercise suo motu revisional power without setting out a time limit within which the power is to be exercised, the jurisdiction is of necessity required to be invoked within a reasonable time, though such reasonable time may vary according to the facts of the case. It held that the absence of prescription of time for exercise of suo motu power does not authorize the authority vested with the power to invoke it after a lapse of any length of time, since exercise of an administrative or quasi judicial power is necessarily linked to the concept of rule of law and exercise of power after long lapse of time is ex facie arbitrary. The said judgment was questioned before the Supreme Court, which in turn, negatived the challenge to the judgments of this Court and held that exercise of suo motu power after 14 or 15 years i s ipso facto unreasonable and that exercise of such power with unexplained delay arbitrarily unsettles the settled rights. In a catena of judgments, this Court took a similar view and nulliﬁed initiation of suo motu revisional powers after long lapse of time. (See Smt. P.Mangamma and others v. The Women’s Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Barakatpura, Hyderabad[3], Gudepu Sailoo and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [4]) I n Vallabhdas Pallod and others v. the Municipal Council, Zaheerabad and others, W.A.No.674 of 2004 and ba tch, this Court invalidated the exercise of suo motu revisional power of the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the 1971 Act and his action in setting aside the order of the Tahsildar, Zaheerabad, dated 03.04.1981 recording entries after due notice to the concerned persons including the Municipality. This Court reiterated the principle that even in the absence of prescription of limitation for exercise of revisional power, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time, and held that the said power was exercised by the Joint Collector after a lapse of more than 14 years after disposal of the case by the Tahsildar and no convincing explanation was oﬀered as to why the authority had waited for such a long time in the absence of any allegation of fraud played by the petitioners in obtaining the orders of the Tahsildar, dated 03.04.1981. In a recent judgment of this Court, a learned Single Judge in M/s.Prathap Jungle Resorts Private Limited and another v. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, W.P.No.20104 of 2005 and batch, set aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy in exercise of his suo motu revisional powers under Section 9 of the Act. A perusal of the facts in the said case reveals that they are almost identical to the facts of the present case where the main ground, on which suo motu revisional powers were exercised, was that the Village Patwari created illegal entries in respect of land admeasuring Acs.156.17 guntas in Survey No.65 by forming sub-survey Nos.65/1 to 65/33 and the Joint Collector set aside those entries after lapse of several years. While allowing the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge held as under: “In any view of the matter, in the considered view of this Court, exercise of suo motu revisional power by a quasi judicial authority whether under the provisions of the 1971 Act or the APLR Act appears unsustainable in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. If the State seeks to claim ownership of lands then a duly constituted judicial authority, whether the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction or any other Tribunal if appropriate, would have the jurisdiction to go into complex questions of fact, ownership and title. Such process must be taken recourse to. The sketchy an d ipse dixit impugned order of the ﬁrst respondent illustrates the inappropriateness of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the first respondent.” Having carefully considered the said judgment, I am of the opinion that this case falls in all fours of the said judgment. Even in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the name of Sri P.Narasimha Rao was entered in the pahanies in 1962-63. Various rounds of litigation ensued thereafter and the said Narasimha Rao emerged successful in the litigation all through. Respondent No.4 wrote letter, dated 07.12.1998 to the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy that the land does not belong to the Government and accordingly, the document was registered. As far back as 26.02.1980, respondent No.2 forwarded the representation of the petitioners with the endorsement to take necessary action after the disposal of Second Appeal No.805 of 1974 and accordingly, the records were mutated. In this factual background, respondent No.3 has not oﬀered any explanation whatsoever for not initiating t h e suo motu revisional powers at the earliest possible opportunity. In the absence of any such explanation, I hardly ﬁnd any justiﬁcation in respondent No.3 initiating suo motu proceedings to cancel the entries contained in the revenue records after more than 40 years. Such an exercise of revisional power falls foul of the well-settled law, as referred to above. In view of my ﬁnding on point No.1 framed by respondent No.3, there is no need to go into and adjudicate the correctness or otherwise of the ﬁndings rendered by him on other points. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni [1] (2003) 7 SCC 667 [2] 1996(2) An.W.R.511 [3] 1995(3) ALT 330 (D.B.) [4] 1998(3) ALD 652