LexJT. COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DIST. & ANR. ETC. versus D. NARSING RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 437
JT. COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DIST. & ANR. ETC.
v.
D. NARSING RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 325-326 of 2015)
JANUARY 13, 2015
[C. NAGAPPAN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
A
B
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,
1317F - s.1668 - Suo motu revision undertaken after a long
lapse of time (about 50 years) - Permissibility - Notice u/s
C
1668 - Challenged by respondents claiming to be owners in
possession of the land as the names of their predecessors-
in-interest were mentioned in the Khasra Pahani of the year
1954-55 - Courts below set aside the notice - On appeal,
held: Though no limitation is provided for undertaking suo
D
motu revision, the exercise of the same after 50 years is
arbitrary and unreasonable and opposed to be concept of law
- Andhra Pradesh {Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land
Regulation, 135BF -
Regulation 13 - Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 135BF -
E
Limitation.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
Per C. Nagappan, J. 1. Consequent to the merger of
Hyderabad State with India in 1948 the Jagirs were
abolished by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, 1358 fasli. 'Khasra Pahani'
F
is the basic record of rights prepared by the Board of G
Revenue Andhra Pradesh in the year 1954-55. It was
gazetted under Regulation 4 of the A.P. (Telangana Area)
Record of Rights in Land Regulation 1358F. As per
437
H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 1 S.C.R.
A Regulation No.13 any entry in the said record of rights
shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved.
The said Regulation of 1358-F was in vogue till it was
repealed by the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Act, 1971, which came into force on 15.8.1978. The
B names of the predecessors in title of the respondents are
found mentioned in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-
55 pertaining to the land in question. The purchase of the
said lands by the respondents from them under
registered sale deeds are also not seriously disputed.
c They have also been regularly paying land revenue
continuously since the year 1954. The State issued the
impugned notice dated 31.12.2004 under Section 1668 of
A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,1317 F (1907) for
cancellation of entries in the Khasra Pahani of the year
D 1953-54. [para 9-1 O] [450-G-H; 451-A-B, C-E]
2. No time limit is prescribed in Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation,
1358F for the exercise of suo motu power. The
Government had every occasion to verify the revenue
E entries pertaining to the lands rn question while passing
the Government Order dated 24.9.1991 (reserving land for
house-sites to the Government employees), but no
exception was taken to the entries found. Even when the
Government order dated 24.9.1991 was challenged, no
F action was initiated pertaining to the enfries in the said
survey numbers. The suit by purchasers of land from
respondent Nos.1 and 2, praying for a declaration that
they were lawful owners and possessors of certain plots
of land in survey No.36 was decreed and said decree
G was allowed to become final. By the impugned Notice
dated 31.12.2004 the suo motu revision power under
Regulation 1668 was sought to be exercised after five
decades. The suo motu revision undertaken after a long
lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of
H ·limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of
JT. COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DIST. v. D.
439
NARSING RAO & ORS.
rule of law. [para 11-12] [452-E-H; 453-A-B, C-D]
A
Collector and others vs. P. Mangamma and others 2003
(2) SCR 430 = 2003 (4) sec 488 (2003) 4 sec 488; State
of Maharashtra and another vs. Rattan/al 1992 (3) Suppl.
SCR 536 = (1993) 3 SCC 326; State of Orissa and others vs.
B
Brundaban Sharma and another (1995) Supp.(3) SCC 249;
State of Gujarat vs. Patil Raghav Natha and others (1969) 2
SCC 187; Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai
Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71; Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil
and others vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others
(2009) 9 SCC 352 ; State of Punjab and others vs. Bhatinda C
District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. 2007
(11) SCR 14 = (2007) 11 SCC 363; /brahimpatnam Ta/uk
Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham vs. K. Suresh Reddy and others
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 698 = (2003) 7 SCC 667 - referred to.
D
Per T.S. Thakur, J.(Supplementing):
1. If actions or transactions were to remain foExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.