2003 (8) TMI 532 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Collector can exercise suo-motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 at any time or such power is to be exercised within a reasonable time?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Collector can exercise suo-motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 at any time or within a reasonable time.
2. Validity and correctness of the orders passed by the Joint Collector canceling the validation certificates issued by the Tahsildar.
3. The impact of alleged fraud in obtaining validation certificates on the exercise of suo-motu power.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Exercise of Suo-Motu Power by the Collector
The central issue in these appeals is whether the Collector's suo-motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, can be exercised at any time or must be within a reasonable time. The provision states that the Collector may, "suo-motu at any time," call for and examine the record relating to any certificate issued or proceedings taken by the Tahsildar for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such certificate or the regularity of such proceedings.

The appellants argued that the absence of a prescribed period of limitation implies that the power can be exercised at any time. Conversely, the respondents contended that such power should be exercised within a reasonable time to prevent arbitrary and unreasonable actions that could unsettle settled positions and affect third-party rights.

The Court concluded that the words "at any time" should not be interpreted literally to allow indefinite exercise of power. Instead, it should be understood as within a reasonable time, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court emphasized that while no specific period is prescribed, the exercise of suo-motu power must be reasonable and not arbitrary.

Issue 2: Validity of Joint Collector's Orders Canceling Validation Certificates
The Joint Collector issued show-cause notices and subsequently canceled validation certificates issued by the Tahsildar, claiming the certificates were issued without following proper procedures and were obtained fraudulently. The High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench both found that the suo-motu power was exercised after an unreasonable delay of 13-15 years, making the cancellation of certificates legally unsustainable.

The Court affirmed the High Court's view that the suo-motu power should be exercised within a reasonable time, and the long delay in this case was unjustified. The Court also noted that the validation certificates were issued within the extended time limits provided by the amendments to Section 50-B and were therefore valid.

Issue 3: Impact of Alleged Fraud on Suo-Motu Power
In some cases, the appellants argued that the validation certificates were obtained fraudulently to defeat the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, 1961. The High Court did not examine the fraud allegations in detail as they were not sufficiently pleaded or argued before it. The Court held that in cases of fraud, the suo-motu power could be exercised within a reasonable time from the date of discovery of the fraud. However, in the absence of specific allegations and proof of fraud, the exercise of power after such a long delay was not justified.

The Court emphasized that the exercise of suo-motu power "at any time" must be reasonable and contextually appropriate, taking into account the potential impact on third-party rights and the finality of orders under other statutes like the Land Ceiling Act.

Separate Judgments:
In Civil Appeal Nos. 1891 and 1892 of 1998, the High Court upheld the Joint Collector's cancellation of validation certificates, finding that the fraud alleged against the appellants was established and the suo-motu power was exercised within a reasonable time from the discovery of the fraud. The Court found no valid reason to interfere with the High Court's findings and dismissed the appeals.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's view that the Collector's suo-motu power under Section 50-B(4) must be exercised within a reasonable time, and the long delay in exercising this power was unjustified. The Court also upheld the High Court's findings on the validity of the validation certificates and the impact of alleged fraud on the exercise of suo-motu power.