THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A. No. 1979 of 1999 And W.A. No. 2001 of 1999 JUDGMENT (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T Meena Kumari) : These Writ appeals have been filed against the Common Order passed in W.P. No. 5684 of 1988 and W.P. No. 15544 of 1989 dated 27th September 1999 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge, set aside the order dated 23.4.1987 passed by the Court of the Agent to Government Khammam on its file in CMA No. 52/1976 and CMA No. 1/1989. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:- The writ petitioner in WP No. 5684 of 1988 purchased an extent of Ac 2.26 gts., in Sy.No.5 situated at Pusugudem village of Kothagudem under a stamped sale deed dated 10-3-1962 and that the predecessor in title was a tribal and the sale took place before Regulation No.1 of 1959 came into existence and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent in the writ petition suo moto initiated proceedings under Section 3 of Land Transfers Regulation Act and issued show cause notice that the sale was made in contravention of the Provisions of the A.P. Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation Act of 1959. It is stated that the Special Deputy Collector, Paloncha, without considering any material or giving any opportunity to the petitioner, basing on the mere statement of the son of the original tribal that his father did not alienate the land, passed an order of eviction of the petitioner in Case No. 456/74 dated 5-11-1974. Aggrieved against the said order, when the petitioner filed C.M.A.No. 52 of 1976 before the Agent to Government, Khammam (1st respondent), the first respondent also without considering the merits of the case dismissed the appeal by its order dated 23-4-1987. Questioning the said the order, the present writ petition has been filed. The writ petition No.15544/1989 was filed by a non-tribal being aggrieved by the order dated 8-3-1989 passed by the Agent to Government, Khammam on C M A No.1/1989 wherein the appellate court confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Paloncha dated 20.5.1988 passed on Case No. 417/88/PNK. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the land on 11.3.1963 through an unregistered sale deed, which was prior to the commencement of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (in short ‘the Regulations’) and that the Regulations came into force from 1.12.1963. It is also the case of the petitioner that 1st respondent-tribal filed a petition to set aside the sale, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Khammam in Case No.472/72 rejected the petition observing that the respondent No.1 made an admission that the sale took place on 11-3-1963, prior to the commencement of the Regulations. It is also the case of the petitioner that without being any appeal or revision filed by any of the parties as such against the order of the Spl. Deputy Collector, the appellate court in the impugned order chooses to set aside that order dated 24.5.1973. Questioning the said order, he filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge disposed of the above writ petition No.5684 of 1988 through a common order 27.9.1999 along with another writ petition No.15544/1989, wherein the facts and circumstances alleged are similar and thereby set aside the impugned orders of the Agent to Government in both the writ petitions. Aggrieved against the said common order, the respondents 1 & 2 therein filed these writ appeals. The main contentions urged before the learned single Judge was that in both the writ petitions i.e., W.P. No.15544 of 1989 and 5684 of 1998 a common order has been passed. W.P. No.15544 of 1998 was filed aggrieved by the order dt. 8.3.1989 passed in CMA No.1/1989 by the Agent to Government, Khammam, whereby the learned appellate authority confirmed the order of the Special Deputy Collector (TW), Paloncha dated 20.5.1988 passed in Case No. 417/88/PNK. The other contention raised was that the petitioners have purchased the land through an unregistered sale deeds dated 11.3.1963 prior to the commencement of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (in short ‘the Regulations’) and they were put in to possession of the same and therefore the authorities had no jurisdiction to set aside the said sale. It was also submitted before the learned Single Judge that the father of 1st respondent-tribal, filed a petition before the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Khammam in Case No. 472/72 and Case No. 417/88/PNK respectively seeking to declare the sale deeds dated 11.3.1963 as void, but the said petition was dismissed by the Special Deputy Collector, through his order dt. 24.5.1973 and the said order has become final as no appeal or revision was filed against the said order. The petitioner in the writ petition has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court between G NARSA REDDY v. COLLECTOR, ADILABAD DISTRICT[1] to support his case that the authorities under the Regulations have no jurisdiction or power to decide the validity of a sale that had taken place prior to the commencement of the Regulations. It was also further contended before the learned Single Judge that the case was sought to be reopened after a period of 12 years, which is unreasonable and contrary to the law declared by the Courts. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents therein has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1994(2) An. W.R 216 to support the contention that the principle of res judicata does not apply to the authorities under the Regulations and for Tribunals and that the alleged sale though appears to be prior to the commencement of the Regulations, yet it was not a valid sale and therefore the said sale order do not call for any interference. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that the said is not a valid one and there cannot be any defence on the ground that that the sale took place prior the commencement of the Regulations and as such the impugned order of the government needs no interference. On hearing and upon perusing the material available on record, the learned Single Judge with regard to the facts of the case observed that the sale took place on 11-3-1963 i.e., prior to the commencement of the Regulations which have come into force in Telangana area from 1.12.1963, and that the tribal has filed a petition to set aside the sale in Case No. 472/72 before the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority had earlier dismissed the same and therefore it has become final. The learned Judge also observed that it is further to be noted that in a judgment of the Apex Court between DY. COLLECTOR v. S VENKATA RAMANAIAH[2] the Apex Court ruled that Section 3 (1) of the Regulations are prospective, but not retrospective. Even though a contention was sought to be raised before the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner by virtue of an unregistered sale deed of the year 1963 has been in possession right from 1963 and hence his possession is unlawful. However, the validity of the sale deed has to be questioned in a Civil Court, but as held by the Full Bench of this Court, the validity of such a sale or otherwise has to be decided only by a Competent Court. In other words, if there is any sale, which is in contravention of the Registration Act etc., it is only for the Appropriate Court to decide it’s validity and no such powers are conferred on the authorities under the Regulations. In the instant case, the sales have taken place on 11.3.1963 and the suo moto powers are sought to be exercised only after a period of 12 years initiated on the basis of the report of the Deputy Tahsildar dt 06.04.1988 i.e., nearly after 25 years from the date of the sale deed and 15 years from the date of the order dt. 24.5.1973 i.e., the date of the dismissal order passed in the case filed by the Tribal to declare the sale as void. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the suo moto powers, if any, could be exercised only by the original authority, but not by the appellate authority for reversing the earlier order, that too within a reasonable time. It is also to be further observed that there is no material available as such to exercise the power within a reasonable time. It is also an established law by virtue of various judgments as reported with regard to the “period” more so ‘within reasonable time’ for the purpose of reviewing the earlier orders passed by the competent authority. The learned Single Judge considered the following judgments of Division Bench of this Court reported in P MANGAMMA vs., WORKMEN’S CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD(1995 (3)ALT 330); COMMR. OF SURVEY, SETTLEMENTS & LAND RECORDS v. G PADMAVATHI(1999(4) ALD 61) and IBRAHIMPATNAM TALUK VYAVASAYA COOLI SANGAM v K SURESH REDDY(1996 (2) A L D 945) for the proposition that such revisional powers should be exercised “within a reasonable period” having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and that the exercise of suo moto power by the authorities after a period of 7, 12, 14, 15 and 27 years is ipso facto unreasonable. The learned single Judge also observed that in the case before him, the sale deed was dated 11.3.1963 and it was upheld by the order of the Special Deputy Collector dated 24.5.1973 and as such the validity of such a sale deed cannot be considered on the basis of the report of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 6.4.1988, by exercising the suo motu powers as by that date, 25 years had elapsed. He further observed that even otherwise, from the earlier order dated 24.5.1973, the exercise of suo motu powers on the basis of the report of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 6.4.1988 would be after a period of 15 years and therefore he concluded that the order of the first authority as well as the appellate authority are passed after an unreasonable time and are liable to be set aside. Under the above circumstances, the admitted fact remains that the sale had occurred prior to the enactment of the Regulations came into force and more so the power to exercise the suo motu powers by the authorities nearly after a period of 15 years from the date of dismissal of the application filed by the Tribal is not valid and as no explanation is forthcoming from the respondents i.e., the appellants herein, as to they exercised such power within a reasonable time and hence we are of the opinion that the opinion arrived at by the learned single Judge is very reasonable and legal and it has no infirmity to be interfered with. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ T MEENA KUMARI J Dt 10.6.08 ____________________________ kvrk RAMESH RANGANATHAN J THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A. No. 1979 of 1999 And W.A.No. 2001 of 1999 10th June 2008 [1] AIR 1982 A.P. 1 [2] A I R 1996 S C 224