COLLECTOR AND ORS. versus P. MANGAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 28-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COLLECTOR AND ORS. 
v. 
P. MANGAMMA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 28, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 197?-
C Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1950-Sections 47, 48 
and 166 B--Cancellation of assignments of lands to original allottees after 30 
years-In writ petition direction by Single Judge of High Court for 
reconsideration by original authority-Division Bench set aside cancellation 
order in view of lapse of 30 years-On appeal-Held, reasonableness of 
D period has to be decided in view of surrounding circumstances and relevant 
factors-Since all the relevant aspects were not considered by the High Court, 
matter remitted back to Division Bench of High Court. 
Suo motu proceedings were initiated by District Collector under 
Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 r/w 
E Section 1668 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 
1950, on the ground that assignments in favour of original assignees were 
irregular and there were violations of several stipulations and conditions 
provided under the Special Loani Rules. This was because the transfers 
made by the original assignees Were illegal and in view of the 
F contraventions of the conditions stipulated under Sections 47 and 48 of 
Land Revenue Act, the assignments were to be cancelled. Accordingly, 
order of cancellation was passed and the same was challenged before High 
Court. Single Judge disposing of the writ petition held that simply because 
30 years had elapsed, it does not mean that the proceedings have to be 
automatically closed despite divergent claims; and the petitioners were 
G directed to submit their claims before the competent authority. 
H 
In appeal, .')ivision Bench held that though there was no time limit 
fixed for initiation of action it has to be within a reasonable period and 
therefore, action after about 30 years cannot be maintained. Thus, the 
order of cancellation was set aside upsetting the directions of Single Judge. 
430 
COLLECTOR v. P. MANGAMMA 
431 
In appeal to this Court, respondents contended that Prohibition Act A 
has no application to the facts of the case and it is applicable only to 
assignments made by the government; that though there is ban on transfer 
of the land.assigned under the Prohibition Act, bot there was no such 
stipulation under the Rules; and that though there cannot be a rigid 
formula for determining the reasonable period, but a period of 30 years B 
cannot be termed to be a reasonable period. 
Appellants contended that Section 3 of the Prohibition Act contained 
a deemed provision and assignments before and after the commencement 
of the Prohibition Act were covered; that certificate showed that there was 
prohibition on transfer of the land assigned; and that on the facts of the C 
present case, the action cannot be said to have been taken after a long 
period. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. A reasonable period would depend upon the factual D 
circumstances of the concerned case. There cannot be any empirical 
formula to determine that question. The Court/authority considering the 
question whether the period is reasonable or not has to take into account 
the surrounding circumstances and relevant factors to decide that question. 
Reasonable, being a relative term is essentially what is rational according E 
to the dictates of reason and not excessive or immoderate on the facts and 
circumstances of the particular case. [434-D; 435-C) 
State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors., AIR (1969) SC 1997; 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mis Jagan Nath, AIR (1987) SC 2316 and 
Ashok Kumar and Anr. v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat)(?) Ltd. and Anr., AIR p 
(1989) SC 973, referred to. 
Labouchere v. Gowson, (1872) L.R. 13 Ed. Ca. 325, referred to. 
2. All tile relevant aspects have not been considered by the Division 
Bench which confined its consideration only to the question of delay. The G 
explanation offered by the appellants and the stand regarding non-
applicability of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) 
Act, 1977 as raised by the respondents have not been considered by the 
Single Judge or the Division Bench. It would, therefore, be appropriate 
to remit the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration by 
the Division Bench. Normally, the question relating to valid initiation of H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.