THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21911 of 2002 November 11, 2010 Between: Smt. Bandari Posani, W/o.late Gattaiah … Petitioner And The Special Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21911 of 2002 ORDER: The land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in S.No.38/1 situated at Bhatti Sawargaon village in Adilabad District was allegedly assigned under Laoni Rules, 1950, to Gattaiah, husband of the petitioner. In the same proceedings No.A/5621/61, dated 12.5.1961, Tahsildar assigned land to nine other persons. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad (RDO) vide reference No.A/1544, dated 26.6.1990 sent a report to the second respondent. He stated that the Tahsildar made irregular assignments and that the assigned land is situated within a radius of one mile of Municipal limits, which is prohibited by the Government vide their orders in G.O.Ms.No.1065, dated 01.5.1961. In response to the report of the RDO, second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28.3.1980 to ten assignees including Gattaiah. Three of the assignees including Gattaiah submitted their explanations claiming that they are landless poor persons eking out livelihood by cultivating the land and that the cancellation of assignment after a period of 30 years would be improper. Second respondent by orders in proceedings No.B/4975/86, dated 30.4.1981 cancelled the assignment on the ground that it was made ignoring the ban imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1065, dated 01.5.1961 prohibiting assignment of land within Municipal limits in Andhra area, which was extended to Telangana area vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.1122, dated 29.6.1961. Petitioner’s husband, Gattaiah, filed appeal/review before the first respondent in 1990. The same was dismissed on 20.9.1996. Six years thereafter petitioner filed the instant writ petition assailing the order of the first respondent. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the exercise of revisional power by the second respondent under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (the Act) after lapse of 20 years is arbitrary and unreasonable. He relies on State of Gujarat v Patel Raghav Natha[1], P.Mangamma v Women’s Co-op. Housing Society Ltd[2] and S.Santhanam v State of Andhra Pradesh[3]. Per contra, the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) submits that the assignment made by the Tahsildar in 1961 was illegal and irregular in the face of the G.Os prohibiting assignment of land within Municipal limits and, therefore, the cancellation of assignment is justified. She also contends that writ petition is barred by delay and laches and that when the first respondent passed orders on 20.9.1996, writ petition is filed after lapse of six years. The only point that falls for consideration is whether the order of the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent amounts to reasonable exercise of power under Section 166-B of the Act. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.1065, dated 01.5.1961 banning the assignment of Government land within Municipal limits in Andhra area for agricultural purposes. Pending consideration by the Government, with regard to applicability of such a ban in Telangana area, the District Collectors in Telangana area were directed not to assign or alienate Government land within Municipal limits including twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The Government followed up the same by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1122, dated 29.6.1961 extending prohibition of assignment of Government land in Municipal limits for agricultural purposes. The following instructions were issued in G.O., which are as follows. (i) In all district headquarter town and also in municipal towns other than greater Hyderabad city in the state, and within a belt of one mile from the limits of such towns, no government vacant land (whether poramboke, assessed or unassessed) coming under the descriptions given below, should be disposed of or recommended for disposal by assignment, long lease exceeding 5 years to private individuals or association for non-public purposes or alienation except as provided in clause (3) below:- (a) Land (of any extent) which adjoins the site of any government building institution, etc., or which is across the road or within a distance of a quarter of a mile from such building institution, etc., and (b) Land which does not come under the description (a) above but which is half-an-acre or more in extent. (ii) All such lands should be immediately entered in the prohibitive order books maintained by the revenue officers concerned (if no prohibitive order book is being maintained at present, one may be opened and maintained from now onwards. (iii) No Government land should be allotted to any department or individual without consulting the housing board and if the housing board wants any lands, preference should be given to it as far as possible. (iv) If, for any reason, it is felt that any such land should be assigned or alienated, the collector concerned should first make at reference to the heads of departments and particularly to the director of medical services, the director of public health, the director of public instruction, the director of industries and commerce and the director of agriculture to ascertain whether the land is likely to be required for any government purpose in the near or distant further such land should be disposed of or recommended for disposal only in cases where all the heads of departments do not consider that the land is likely to so required. In the case of assignment, the proposal should be submitted to the government for their approval, even if the land is not likely to be required for any government purpose, as alienations are made only to public bodies for public purposes. (v) If any head of department considers that any such land is required or is likely to be required in the near or distant future for any purpose of his department he should intimate his requirements to the collector concerned promptly, without waiting for the collector to make a reference to his as and when an application is made for the assignment or alienation of the land. When intimating their requirements to the collector, heads of departments should as far as possible, give full particulars of the site or sites required instead of stating their requirements in a general way. When such particulars are furnished, necessary entries stating the purpose and department for which the site is required, should be made in the prohibitive order book against the particular site or sites. (vi) The prohibition imposed by this order will apply also to the grant of lands to political sufferers and others under the latest assignment rules. (vii) Orders in respect of vacant lands in and around greater Hyderabad City are contained in Para 5 below. Gattaiah, petitioner’s husband, was assigned land in May 1961, when the above directions were in force. Therefore the decision of the RDO in cancelling the assignment as being irregular cannot be faulted. There was compliance with the rules of natural justice and a show cause notice was issued to Gattaiah, which is not disputed. Whether exercise of power under Section 166-B of the Act is justified? Section 166-B of the Act confers suo motu revisional powers on any Revenue officer not below the rank of Collector to call for the records of a case or a proceeding from the subordinate in order to satisfy whether such order passed or decision taken is regular, legal and proper. There is no time limit prescribed for exercising such revisional power. In Patel Raghav Nath, the Supreme Court held that the exercise of suo motu revisional power is not conditioned by any limitation but still such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. This issue has been consistently followed (see Hindustan Times v Union of India[4]). What is reasonable time within which suo motu revisional powers can be exercised? In P.Mangamma a Division Bench of this Court dealing with the case of exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 166-B of the Act opined that such exercise of revisional power after lapse of 31 years is irrational and unreasonable violating doctrine of fairplay in administrative action. The Division Bench judgment in P.Mangamma was reversed by the Supreme Court in Collector v P.Mangamma[5]. Therein it was observed as follows. It would be hard to give an exact definition of the word “reasonable”. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic stands now like the jingling of a child’s toy. But mankind must be satisfied with the reasonableness within reach; and in cases not covered by authority, the decision of the Judge usually determines what is “reasonable” in each particular case; but frequently reasonableness “belongs to the knowledge of the law, and therefore to be decided by the courts”. It was illuminatingly stated by a learned author that an attempt to give a specific meaning to the word “reasonable” is trying to count what is not a number and measure what is not space. It means prima facie in law reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called upon to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. [See Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar[6] and Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd.[7]] As observed by Lord Romilly, M.R. in Labouchere v. Dawson[8] it is impossible a priori to state what is reasonable as such in all cases. You must have the particular facts of each case established before you can ascertain what is reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable, being a relative term is essentially what is rational according to the dictates of reason and not excessive or immoderate on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to this Court. In Santhanam the Division Bench of this Court considered the point afresh and came to the conclusion that exercise of power under Section 166-B of the Act after lapse of 30 years is unreasonable. It was also noticed that after the assignment, “large number of third parties acquired rights and interest in the land during the passage of 30 years.” Therefore the cancellation of assignment made in1961, by order dated 30.4.1981, is unreasonable in the facts of the case. The conclusion as above, however, does not mean that this Court should exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit opposing the writ petition, on the ground of delay and laches, it is stated that the land was resumed under the cover of panchanama dated 14.5.1981, that after resuming the land the same was handed over to Department of Jails vide proceedings of the District Collector bearing No.B3/5070/85, dated 21.11.1986 for construction of Jail complex and that the petitioner filed instant writ petition six years after the orders of the first respondent. A copy of the said proceedings are also annexed to the counter affidavit filed along with W.V.M.P.No.1074 of 2004. This remains uncontroverted. Further, across the Bench, the Assistant Government Pleader submits that the Jail complex has come up in the land total admeasuring about Acs.50.00 which includes the land resumed from the petitioner’s husband and that a Prison Training School has also been constructed. Further, as rightly pointed out by the respondents, against the orders dated 30.4.1981 passed by the second respondent, petitioner’s husband preferred appeal/review only in 1990 and the application for grant of stay was also dismissed. Thus post cancellation events would certainly militate against exercising favourable discretion by this Court. In the result, for the above reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 11, 2010. YS [1] AIR 1969 SC 1297 [2] 1995(3) ALT 330 (DB) [3] 2006 (2) ALT 341 (DB) [4] AIR 1968 SC 688 [5] (2003) 4 SCC 488 : AIR 2003 SC 1706 [6] AIR 1987 SC 2316 [7] AIR 1989 SC 973 [8] (1872) LR 13 Eq Ca 325