IBRAHIMPATNAM TALUK VYAVASAY COOLIE SANGHAM versus K. SURESH REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 19-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
IBRAHIMPA TNAM TALUK VY AV ASAY A COOLIE SANGHAM 
v. 
K. SURESH REDDY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 19, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 
C 1980 and Amendments made thereunder; Section 50(B)(4): Alienation/Transfer 
of agricultural land in excess of land ceiling-Cancellation of sale validation 
certi:fi:ateonthegmun::iofciis::n~offiaui- Suo Motu revisional powers-
Exercise of by the Collector/Authority-Reasonable time period-Held: Such 
power could be exercised by the Collector reckoning from a particular date 
D advisedly and contextually-Exercise of such power depends upon facts and 
circumstances of the case-Could be exercised within a reasonable time from 
discovery of the fraud-High Court rightly held valid the validation certificate 
and in not examining the question of fraud in the absence of necessary and 
sufficient pleading-Since transferee already filed declaration showing the 
transferred land as their holding and Land ceiling authorities passed orders 
E thereon, it is not appropriate to interfere with Orders which have become 
final long back-Interpretation of Statutes-Land Ceiling Act, 1970. 
Words and Phrases: 
'At any time '-Meaning of in the context of Section 50(B)(4) of the 
F Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act. 
G 
H 
The issue which arose in these appeals was whether Collector can 
exercise suo-motu power at any time or within a reasonable time under Section 
50(8)(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural 
Land Act 
It was contended for the appellants that since the period of limitation 
for exercise of power by the Collector under Section 50(8)( 4) of the Act was 
not prescribed, exercise of such power by the Collector even after lapse of 
several years was justified; that Tehsildar did not follow proper procedure 
698 
IBRAHIMPA TNAMTALUK VY A VASA YACOOLIESANGHAMv. K. SURESHREDDY 
699 
while issuing validation certificates; and that the validation certificates were A 
obtained by the respondents fraudulently to defeat the provisions of the Land 
Ceiling Act. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that suo-motu power 
ought to be exercised within a reasonable time; that suo-motu exercise of power 
by the authority after a lapse of several years was arbitrary, illegal and would B 
affect the rights of parties adversely; that uncertainty could not be allowed to 
prevail indefinitely; and that the plea of committing fraud in obtaining 
validation certificate by the respondents was not raised before the High Court. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the absence of necessary and sufficient pleading as 
regards fraud; Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court were right 
c 
in not examining the question of fraud alleged to have been committed by the 
non-official respondents. Use of the words "at any time" in sub-section (4) of 
Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Tenancy and D 
Agricultural Land Act only indicates that no specific period of limitation is 
prescribed within which suo-motu power could be exercised reckoning or 
starting from a particular date advisedly and contextually. Exercise of suo-
motu power depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In cases of 
fraud, this power could be exercised within a reasonable time from the date of 
detection or discovery of fraud. While exercising such power, several factors E 
need to be kept in mind such as effect on the rights of the third parties over 
the immovable property due to passage of considerable time, change of hands 
by subsequent bonafide transfers, the orders attaining finality under the 
provisions of Land Ceiling Act. (708-A-D) 
1.2. The suo-motu power could be exercised within a reasonable period 
from the date of discovery of fraud depending on facts and circumstances of 
each case in the context of the statute and nature of rights of parties. Use of 
the words "at any time" in sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act cannot 
F 
be rigidly read by letter but must be read and construed contextually and 
reasonably. If one has to simply proceed on the basis of dictionary meaning of G 
words "at any time", the suo-motu power could be exercised even after decades 
and then it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and 
complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties, that too, over 
immovable prop

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