9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation 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. - Ujjal Bhuyan, C.J. And Surepalli Nanda, J. For the Appellant : J. Ramachandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, further directing him to verify the two points mentioned thereunder which we will advert to at a subsequent stage of this judgment. 7. By the common judgment and order dated 14.02.2017, learned Single Judge quashed the proceedings No. TS/1001/2005 dated 09.04.2008. Learned Single Judge also noted the statement of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration that the revenue authorities would not be interfering with the possession of the writ petitioners over the subject land. Both the writ petitions were accordingly allowed. 8. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23913 of 2010, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority filed W.A. No. 52 of 2018. By the judgment dated 21.09.2021 a Division Bench of this Court opined that Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority could not be construed to be a party aggrieved. Accordingly the writ appeal was dismissed. In the meanwhile, writ appeal No. 1105 of 2018 was filed. Therefore, while dismissing writ appeal No. 52 of 2018 Division Bench clarified that the said decision would have no bearing on writ appeal No. 1105 of 2018 which shall be decided on its own merit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21. On admission the same was registered as civil appeal No. 3632 of 2022 (P. Govind Reddy v. Chief Commissioner). Supreme Court vide order dated 04.05.2022 disposed of the civil appeal. It was noted that Commissioner (Appeals) was the authority that had passed the order dated 09.04.2008. It was challenged in the writ petitions. Supreme Court observed that it was not aware of such an anomalous situation where the authority which passes the order impugned subsequently files an appeal against the judgment of the High Court setting aside the order. Holding that the High Court had rightly struck off Commissioner (Appeals) as an appellant, Supreme Court observed that deletion of said appellant does not necessarily mean that the writ appeal before the High Court could be dismissed as non-maintainable on that ground but suo motu impleadment of the State as an appellant by the High Court was not proper. Therefore, Supreme Court set aside the order dated 21.09.2021 to the extent that it had suo motu impleaded State of Telangana as the second appellant in the writ appeal. The High Court was requested to dispose of the appeal proceedings expeditiously. 12. We will refer to the parties to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of supplementary sethwar issued by him in the year 1993 in respect of the subject land. 16. On 02.02.2006, Chief Commissioner of Land Administration held that the request of the District Collector for according permission to initiate action for cancellation of supplementary sethwar under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act could not be considered but it was observed that if the matter warranted review it can be taken up suo motu by the revisional authority above the rank of District Collector, i.e., Commissioner (Appeals). 17. Notwithstanding the same, Joint Collector again made a similar request to the Commissioner of Land Administration under Section 166-B(3) of the Land Revenue Act. On that basis, proceedings No. T2/1001/2005 were initiated, whereafter Director (Appeals), also referred to as Commissioner (Appeals), passed order dated 09.04.2008 according permission as sought for. But the District Collector was directed to verify the following points: (a) Whether the assignees are ex-servicemen as per the available record? and (b) District Collector to satisfy himself on the question as to whether it would be justified in cancelling the supplementary sethwar after lapse of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he writ petitioners were granted in the year 1961. Supplementary sethwar was granted in the year 1993. After adverting to Section 166-B(3) of the Land Revenue Act and the interpretation given thereto by this Court in Joint Collector v. D. Narasing Rao 2010 (6) ALD 748, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Joint Collector v. D. Narasing Rao (2015) 3 SCC 695, learned Single Judge held that exercise of revisional power by the Joint Collector after long lapse of fifteen years for cancellation of supplementary sethwar was erroneous, that too, without seeking cancellation of original assignments made in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the vendors of the writ petitioners in the year 1961. Further, learned Single Judge held that such suo motu revisional power has to be exercised within a reasonable period. Seeking to exercise revisional powers after lapse of fifteen years could not be permitted. Accordingly, impugned proceedings were quashed. 22.1. In so far the second writ petition is concerned, learned Single Judge noted that on 27.09.2010 interim directions were issued to the revenue authorities not to dispossess the writ petitioners until further orders. Alleging that rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that their vendors were ex-servicemen who were assigned land to an extent of Acs. 5.00 in survey No. 41 of Khanamet Village in File No. E1/1 1993/1960 dated 08.04.1961 is on the face of the record falsifies the claim of assignment. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly accorded permission to the Joint Collector. The assignments could not have been made in 1961 to any ex-servicemen prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 743 dated 30.04.1963. 23.3. In the course of the hearing, learned Additional Advocate General produced the original record and submitted therefrom that the subject land was recorded as 'Kharij Katha Sarkari; the entries were manipulated by creating assignment certificates and relying on the same Bandobust Izafa was sanctioned by the Assistant Director by issuing supplementary sethwar in File No. G8/2567/93 without verifying the record. He further submits that assignment files maintained and issued by the revenue authorities upto the year 1961 were in Telugu language whereas the patta certificates relied upon by the writ petitioners are in English language. This itself creates grave doubts about the genuineness of the claim. In view of such grave doubts, a full- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory power under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act cannot be exercised after a long lapse of nearly fifteen years. Third party rights which have accrued or created cannot be disturbed. 24.1. Learned Senior Counsel has specifically referred to the letter dated 02.02.2006 of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and submits that it was clearly mentioned therein that patta certificates were issued to ex-servicemen in 1961; they had sold the lands after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authorities; names of purchasers were entered in the revenue records as per mutation orders given by the District Collector after thorough verification of relevant records and accordingly pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued. Seeking for cancellation of supplementary sethwar on the ground that there was difference in language and signatures of officers was untenable and not based on any valid grounds. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Chief Commissioner of Land Administration had informed the Joint Collector that if the latter was of the opinion that a case for suo motu revision was made out, he should send a detailed report justifying the same by furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 for getting impleaded in W.A. No. 1105 of 2018. This is again nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. While writ appeal No. 1 105 of 2018 is required to be dismissed as there is no infirmity in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in W.A. No. 1105 of 2018 and W.A. No. 23 of 2022 are required to be dismissed as those are nothing but abuse of the Court process. 24.4. Winding up his submissions, learned Senior Counsel firstly submits that writ petitioners are bona fide purchasers for consideration and therefore, their title and possession are protected by law; secondly, statutory power - be it under Section 166-B(3) of the Land Revenue Act or otherwise where no limitation is prescribed, cannot be exercised after an unreasonable period. 24.5. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Svenska Handelsbanken v. M/s. Indian Charge Chrome (1994) 1 SCC 502; and (2) The Catholic Mission Presentation Convent v. Subbanna Goundan 1948 AIR (Madras) 320. 25. Submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed to verify the two points which we have already mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. 29. Before we advert to Section 166-B(3) of the Land Revenue Act, it would be apposite to deal with the two orders dated 02.02.2006 and 09.04.2008. 30. A perusal of the order dated 02.02.2006 which is in the form of a letter and placed on record by the writ petitioners by way of memo dated 29.08.2019 would go to show that the District Collector had written letter dated 18.01.2005 addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration seeking permission for cancellation of supplementary sethwar in respect of the subject land under Section 166-B(3) of the Land Revenue Act. This was followed by several internal communications between the authorities. Ultimately, by the letter/order dated 02.02.2006 Joint Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration informed the District Collector that the proposal was examined with reference to the grounds raised and connected record furnished. It was stated that from the connected record and office files there was no substantial or conclusive evidence to show that the subject lands were not assigned to ex-servicemen. Patta certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g necessary permissions from competent authorities. The names of purchasers are entered in revenue records as per the mutation orders given by the District Collector after thorough examination of the relevant record and accordingly Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds were also issued. Now seeking permission for cancellation of supplementary sethwar on the ground that there is difference of language and signatures of the officers is untenable and not based on any valid grounds. In the above circumstances of the case, statutorily the Collector cannot exercise powers under Section 166-B of A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli of his own or on permission and thereby interfering with the interests of the third parties. As such, your request for according permission to initiate action for cancellation of supplementary sethwar under Section 166-B of the A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli cannot be considered. However, if the matter warrants review, it must be taken up suo motu by the Revisional Authority, above the District Collector level i.e., the Commissioner (Appeals), under delegated powers of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad under the said statute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case arose on the proposals of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, seeking permission under Section 166-B(3) of the A.P. T.A. (LR) Act, 1317 Fash to initiate action for cancellation of supplementary sethwar on the following two grounds that:- i. During 1961, files have been maintained for each assignee and all these files contain patta certificate in Telugu language, while patta certificates stated to be issued and found in AD (S LRs) Office are in English language with dt. 08.04.1961. ii. The signature affixed on the certificates do not tally with those certificates issued in the year 1961. 32.1. Thereafter the materials contained in various files were perused following which it was held as follows: The Joint Collector or requested to accord permission to cancel the Supplementary Sethwar 1) suspecting the Typewriter used in preparing the patta certificates is a sophisticated one which may not be available during 1960's, 2) the assignees will not come under the category of Ex Servicemen and 3) signatures were not tallied. After perusing the record and submissions made by the respondents and Special Government Pleader the following aspects were critically analyzed as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . T.R. Varma). Further the Apex Court held that a quasi judicial authority can gather evidence from anyone but it should be made known to the person against whom the said evidence was gathered. (vide AIR 1957 SC 232). In this case, all the material was collected by the respondents under Right to Information Act. For these reasons, the Evidence Act is not applicable to the Collector, R.R. District who is a quasi judicial. 34. After considering the averments made by the learned Counsel for the respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader it is concluded that there is no concrete evidence that was filed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District in support of the claim. 32.4. Thus Director (Appeals) had concluded that there was no concrete evidence filed by the District Collector to support the contention that transactions relied upon by the writ petitioners were fraudulent. In fact, it has been held that the character of the writ petitioners that they are bona fide purchasers for value cannot be denied. Director (Appeals) in paragraph 35 of his order dated 09.04.2008 took the view that all the grounds urged by the District Collector for according permission to cancel su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnees are ex-servicemen as per the available record? and (b) District Collector to satisfy himself on the question as to whether it would be justified in cancelling the supplementary sethwar after lapse of fifteen years when third party interests have been created based on orders/clarifications issued by the revenue officials right from Tahsildar to District Collector? 33. From the above, it is evident that the order dated 09.04.2008 is contradictory. Director (Appeals) clearly held that all the points urged by the District Collector to support cancellation of supplementary sethwar could not be logically proved as there was no concrete evidence. Character of the writ petitioners that they are bona fide purchasers of the subject land could not be denied. All that the Joint Collector was trying to do was to create a sense of suspicion to justify exercise of power under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act. If the above two points were still required to be verified by the District Collector and without verifying the same, Director (Appeals) could not have accorded permission to the District Collector under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act. This further buttresses our view that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al power. 36. This provision came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Collector v. D. Narsinga Rao (supra). (2015) 3 SCC 695 Exercise of suo motu power of revision under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act was called in question. This Court opined that even if no period of limitation is prescribed, the power of revision must be exercised within a reasonable time which must be determined by the facts of each case and the nature of the order being revised. Contention of the State that Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act did not prescribe any limitation and therefore such a power can be exercised at any point of time was rejected. 37. This matter was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court and in Joint Collector v. D. Narsinga Rao (2015) 3 SCC 695 (supra). Supreme Court upheld the views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court. In the facts of that case, Supreme Court was of the opinion that though no time limit is prescribed in Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act for exercise of suo motu power of revision, the same cannot be exercised after five decades; if it is allowed then it would lead to an anomalous position creating uncertainties and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the revenue entries concerning the parcel of land made in the ordinary course of official business. In as much as, the notice was issued as late as on 31-12-2004, it was delayed by nearly 13 years. No explanation has been offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle the notice seeking to reverse the entries made half a century ago, was clearly beyond reasonable time and was rightly quashed. 38. In so far allegation of manipulation of record and fraud is concerned, we may note that 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. It has come on record that the assignees were members of the State Police Force and by subsequent G.O., such members of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it: Provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith. 42. Section 41 says that where with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immovable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it. Of course, as per the proviso the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would only be available if the transferee after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer had acted in good faith. 43. Section 41 came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in The Catholic Mission Presentation Convent (supra). The question considered by the Court was whether the appellants were entitled as bona fide transferees for value from an ostensible ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh the following: (1) Transferor was the ostensible owner of the properties; (2) The consent, express or implied, of the real owner; (3) Transferee paid consideration; (4) Acted in good faith; and (5) After taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to transfer. 43.2. In so far reasonable care to ascertain as to whether the transferor had the power to transfer is concerned, Madras High Court opined that the same had to be determined with reference to the circumstances of the particular case, the test being whether he acted like a reasonable man of business and with ordinary prudence. It was further held as follows: 9. The position then is this. There is no hard and fast rule that the transferee, after satisfying himself as to the apparent ownership of the transferor, should, in every case, make some further inquiry as regards his power to make the transfer. Nor is it correct to say broadly that once the transferee proves that he has taken the transfer from an ostensible owner in good faith and for consideration, he need go no further and prove that he made inquiries in regard to that title of his transferor such as a reasonable man of ordinary prudence would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
