2022 (8) TMI 1519 - HC - Indian Laws

Initiation of proceedings for cancellation of supplementary sethwar - seeking a direction to interdict the action of the revenue authorities in creating a dispute of location and enjoyment - HELD THAT - Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act deals with the power of revision. Sub-section (1) says that the Government or any revenue officer not below the rank of Collector or Settlement Commissioner of Land Records may call for the record of a case or proceedings from a subordinate department and inspect it in order to satisfy himself the order passed or decision taken by the subordinate authority or the proceedings leading to such order or decision is regular, legal and proper and thereafter make suitable order in that behalf. The proviso however says that no such order or decision affecting the rights of ryots shall be modified or annulled unless they are notified and heard. However, as can be seen, no limitation period is provided for exercise of such suo motu revisional power. There is no allegation by the respondents that it is the writ petitioners who had resorted to manipulation of record and had created fraudulent documents. The materials on record do not disclose any such allegation. Though the allegation is that the original assignments in 1961 were wrong and could not have been done because the concerned G.O. dealing with assignment of lands to ex-servicemen came in the year 1963 and that the assignees were not ex-servicemen, no steps were taken to cancel the assignments - Without taking such steps and without coming to any definitive conclusion that the writ petitioners had committed any fraud, permission ought not to have been accorded for cancellation of supplementary sethwar under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act that too after fifteen years of issuance of supplementary sethwar and after almost five decades of assignment of the subject land. There are no good ground to reverse such a finding rendered by the learned Single Judge - there are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

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.