Holding

The Collector's suo‑motu power under Section 50‑B(4) may be exercised only within a reasonable time, determined by the facts, and cannot be exercised arbitrarily after a long lapse despite the statutory phrase "at any time".

Summary

The case concerned validation certificates issued by Tahsildars for transfers of agricultural land that were later cancelled by the Joint Collector exercising suo‑motu power under Section 50‑B(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act. The appellants argued that the Collector could act at any time because the statute used the words "at any time" and that no limitation period was prescribed. The respondents contended that the Collector's power must be exercised within a reasonable time, especially where fraud is alleged, and that the long delay rendered the cancellation arbitrary. The Supreme Court held that "at any time" does not create a limitless period; the power must be exercised within a reasonable time based on the facts, and in cases of fraud the clock starts from the discovery of fraud. Consequently, the High Court's order upholding the validation certificates and rejecting the Collector's cancellation after a 13‑15 year delay was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Collector can exercise suo‑motu power under Section 50‑B(4) of the Act at any time or must do so within a reasonable time.
Whether the cancellation of validation certificates by the Joint Collector after a lapse of 13‑15 years is legally valid.
Whether allegations of fraud must be pleaded and considered before exercising the suo‑motu power.

Legislation cited

Subjects

land lawvalidation of alienationsuo‑motu powerreasonable timeland ceilingfraudstatutory interpretation

Judgment

A IBRAHIMPATNAM TALUK VYAVASAYA 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 ofthe fraud-High Court rightly held valid the validation certificate
and in not examining the question offraud 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.

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
G
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

H 698
IBRAHIMPATNAMTALUK VYAVASA 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
c
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
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 F
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
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 properties. Orders attaining finality and certainty of the rights of
the parties accrued in the light of the orders passed must have sanctity.
Exercise of suo-motu power "at any time" only means that no specific period H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A is prescribed reckoning from a particular date. But that does not mean that
it should be unguided and arbitrary. The Division Bench of the High Court
was right in affirming the view of the Single Judge that the suo-motu power
under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act has to be exercised within a
reasonable time. [708-D, E, F, G; 709-G, HI

B D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India and Anr., (2003] 6 SCC 186, relied
on.

Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 8th Edn. 200I by Justice G.B.
Singh, referred to.

C 1.3. The High Court rightly held that the certificates issued by the
Tehsildar were valid and the order of the Joint Collector cancelling the
validation certificates in exercise of suo-motu power after several years and
not within a reasonable period was not correct in law. The Land Ceiling Act
having come into force, the authorities should have made inquiries and efforts
so as to exercise suo-motu power within reasonable time. Hence, the High
D Court rightly held that the order of the Joint Collector cancelling validation
certificates could not be sustained. (712-C, E, FJ

1.4. In the instant case, the respondents filed returns before the ceiling
authorities under the Ceiling Act, showing these lands as their holdings and
E that the plea had been upheld. Unsettling such position may mean even
reopening the ceiling proceedings which must have become final long time
back. [712-GI

1.5. The appellant is a society of agricultural labourers and their
interest is that if the validation certificates are set aside, the non-official
p respondents will have to surrender excess land held by them and in that event
they would apply for assignment of the lands to the Government and they have
a chance of the land to be assigned to them. It is thus clear that the in~erest
of the appellant is remote. Hence, in the light of the finding~ of fact recorded
by Single Judge based on material placed on record and supporteq by cogent
reasons, there exists no valid reason or good ground to interfere with the
G impugned order. (713-C, DJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. l 0787- l 0795 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.1.96 of the Andhra Pradesh High
H Court in W.A.Nos. 929, 1230, 1298, 1299, 1301, 1332, 1337, 1507 and 1508 of
IBRAHIMPATNAMTALUKVYAVASAYACOOLIESANGHAMv.K.SURESHREDDY[PATIL,J.] 701

1993. A
WITH

C.A.Nos. 6504/2003, 1891and1892of1998.

Navin Prakash, Gopal Singh, P. Niroop, R. Chandrashekhar Reddy, Hari B
Shankar and K.P. Vittal Rao for the Appellant.

Ms. K. Amareshwari, P. Venkat Reddy, G. Venkatesh for N. Sudhakaran,
T.V. Ratnam, K. Maruthi Rao and Ms. K. Radha for Ms. S. Usha Reddy for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
smvARAJ v. PATIL J.
Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10795 of 1996 :

In all these appeals, the following question of law arises for D
consideration:-

"Whether Collector can exercise suo-motu power under sub-section
(4) of Section 50-B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Land Act, 1950 at any time or such power is to be
exercised within a reasonable time." E

Broadly stated, the facts leading to filing of these appeals are the
following:-

Various sale deeds were executed by owners of the lands in favour of
different persons on plain papers. Pursuant to said deeds, possession of F
lands was also delivered to the vendees. Parties to the sale deeds filed
applications under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') for validation
of sales. Concerned Tahsildar issued validation certificates on various dates.
Orders of Tahsildar issuing validation certificates were challenged in appeals G
filed by Specia\ Tahsildar and Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) before the
Joint Collector of the District but those appeals were dismissed in 1988.
Thereafter, the Joint Collector issued show-cause notices purporting to exercise
suo-motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act to the
vendors and the vendees to show cause as to why validation certificates
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A issued in 1974 or earlier should not be cancelled. After considering the
objections filed in response to the show cause notices, Joint Collector of
Rangareddy District set aside the validation certificates in 1989. Challenging
these orders of Joint Collector, sorrie of the parties filed revision petitions and
some of them filed writ petitions before the High Court. Learned Single Judge ...
of the High Court,. after hearing the parties, allowed the revision petitions as
B well as writ petitions and set aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector
passed in exercise of his suo-motu jurisdiction under Section 50-B(4) of the·
Act, taking a view that the suo-motu power of revision under sub-section (4)
of Section 50-B of the Act should have been exercised within reasonable
period although the said sub-section says that suo-motu power could be
C exercised at any time. In that view, he held that the Joint Collector was not
correct in law in canceling the validation certificates issued by the Tahsildar.
Before the learned Single Judge, Ibraham Patnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie
Sangham, the appellant in all these appeals, got impleaded as one of the
respondents. It appears that on the complaint/information given by the
appellant, the Joint Collector initiated proceedings under Section 50-B(4)
D invoking suo-motu power. The appellant in all these appeals aggrieved by and
not satisfied with, filed writ appeals befor~ the Division Bench of the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals
except Writ Appeal No. 1300 of 1993, concurring with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge. As far as Appeal No. 1300 of 1993 was concerned, the
E Division Bench set aside the validation certificate as some discrepancy was
found as to the date of application for issuance of the validation certificate
and the date of sale. It was contended that some fraud was played. Since the
parties did not produce documents, the Division Bench set aside the validation
certificate and permitted the respondent in the appeal to present before the
Joint Collector a reprP.sentation within two months. Under these circumstances,
F the appellants are in appeal before this Court challenging the validity and
correctness of the common order passed by the .Division Bench of the High
Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

It would be useful to see the relevant provisions of the Act in order to
appreciate the respective contentions advanced on behalf of the parties.
G Section 50-B of the Act reads:-

"50-B. Validation of certain alienations and other transfer of
Agricultural lands:-
( I) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where any
H alienation or other transfer of agricultural land took place-
IBRAHIMPATNAMTALUKVYAVASAYACOOLIESANGHAMv.K.SURESHREDDY[PATIL,J.J7Q3

(a) en or after the I 0th June, 1950, but before the date of coming into A
force of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings
Act, 1961 and where possession of such land was given to the
alienee or tranferee before such date of coming into force; and

(b) on or after the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling
on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961, but before the date of the B
commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Third Amendment) Act, 1969 and where
possession of such land was given to the alienee or transferee
before such commencement and such alienation or transfer is not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling
on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961; C
the alienee or transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed,
apply to the Tahsildar for a certificate declaring that such alienation
or transfer is valid.

(2) On receipt of such application, the Tahsildar shall after making D
such enquiry as may be prescribed and after satisfying himself that
the consideration, if any, payable to the alienor or the transferor has
been paid or has been deposited within such time and in such manner
as may be prescribed, require the alienee or the transferee to deposit
in the office of the Tahsildar an amount equal to the registration fees
and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation E
or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with
the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. On the deposit of
such amount, the Tahsildar shall issue a certificate to the alienee or
the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid and
such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Indian F
Registration Act, 1908, be conclusive evidence of such alienation or
transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming
interest under him.

Provided that where an alienation or transfer has been effected by
a registered document, the Tahsildar shall adjust the amount paid by G
the alienee or transferee as registration fee and the stamp duty towards
the amount required to be deposited under this sub-section; and if the
amount so paid by the alience or transferee is less than the amount
required to be deposited by him, the Tahsildar shall require him to
'• deposit the balance."
H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A (3) The validation of any alienation or transfer of any land under sub-
section (2) shall not affect the right accrued to any person under
Section 37-A or Section 38 or Section 38-E.

(4) The Collector may, suo-motu at any time, call for and examine the
record relating to any certificate issued or proceedings taken by the
B Tahsildar under this section for the purpose of satisfying himself as
to the legality or propriety of such certificate or as the regularity of
such proceedings and pass such order in relation thereto as he may
think fit:

Provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be
C passed under this sub-section unless such person has had an
opportunity of making his representation thereto."

Section 50-B of the Act was inserted by Act No. 6of1964. Subsequently,
sub-section (4) of Section 50-B was inserted by Act No. II of 1979. The
Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973
D came into force on 1.1.197 5. The Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands
(Prohibition and Alienation) Act, 1972 is deemed to have come into force on
22.5, 1972. There was prohibition of alienation of holding under the said Act.
As per Section 5, no person who was holding as on the date of commencement
of the said Act or at any time thereafter exceeded the specified limit shall
E alienate such holding or any part thereof and any transfer made in
contravention of the said Section shall be null and void. Section 50-B was
inserted in the Act by A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act VI of 1964). In Section 50-B, there were three
sub-sections. Under Section 50-B(l) notwithstanding anything contained in
Chapter V of the Act where any alienation or other transfer of agricultural land
F took place on or after I 0.6.1950, but before 21.2.1961, and where possession
of such land was given to the alinee or transferee before 21.2.1961, he may,
within one year from such date as may be prescribed apply to the Tahsildar
for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. This period
was extended further from time to time.

G The Statement of Objects and Reasons given in the Bill leading to Act
No. VI of 1964 reads:
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS •'!

"Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, which is in force in the Telangana Area
H
I·
IBRAHIMPATNAMTALUKVYAVASAYACOOLIESANGHAMv.K.SURESHREDDY[PATIL,J.]705

of this State as it stood prior to its amendment by the Andhra Pradesh A
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act,
I 959, provided that no permanent alienation or other transfer of
agricultural land shall be valid unless it was made with the previous
sanction of the Collector. In actual practice, however, the requirement
of this section and also sections 48 and 49 had not been complied
with, and alienations and transfers had been effected on a considerable B
scale without the previous permission of the Collector, by means of
oral agreement, unregistered documents, etc.

2. In the year I 953, the former Government of Hyderabad undertook
land census operations throughout the erstwhile State of Hyderabad.
In consonance with the objective of the land census, the names of C
persons in actual possession of lands were entered in the Land
Census records without reference to their lawful title thereto. In the
light of the experience gained during the census operations, it was
considered that the record prepared for the land census should form
the basis for the Record of Rights and that, with a view to ensuring D
the up-to-date maintenance of the Record of Rights, it should be
integrated with the annual (Jamabandi) accounts. For this purpose,
the former Government of Hyderabad authorized the preparation of a
comprehensive village account, called the "Khasra Pahani Patrak"
which was to be an integrated record relating to Land Census, Record
of Rights, and the annual Revenue Accounts. The preparation of the E
record created a mistaken impression in the public that the government
recognized the sales that had taken place in contravention of the
relevant statutes. Instructions were therefore issued on the 14th May,
1957 to the effect that the Subordinate Revenue Officers might take
suo-motu action to omit from the Record of Rights the names of F
persons who had already been recorded therein as occupants but
whose possession was not lawful. Consequent on the issue of these
instructions, representations have been received that their
implementation would result in great hardship, particularly as the
lands in many cases were sold by landlords to tenants, in view of the
current and impending Land Reform Measures. G
3. Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings'
Act, I 96 I, enacts that no person whose holding is in excess of the
ceiling area on the date on which the assent of the President to the
Act is first published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, namely the 21st
H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A February, 1961, shall alienate his holding or any part thereofuntil the
requirements specified in that section are fulfilled. The government
·have therefore decided that alienations or other transfers of agricultural
land that took place on or after the 10th June, 1950, (the date on which
the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950, came into force), but before the 21st February 1961, without
B obtaining the previous sanction of the Collector or the Tahsildar as
required under sub-section (l) of section 47 of the said Act, should
be validated by the issue of a certificate by the Tahsildar on an
application filed before him within one year from the date of coming
into effect of the proposed legislation, if possession of such la~d was
c given to the alienee or transferee before the 21st February 1961 and
if the alienee or the transferee deposits in the office of the Tahsildar
an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that
\:VOuld have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected
by a registered document. It is also proposed to provide that the
Tahsildar shall also satisfy himself before the issue of the certificate
D that the alienee has paid the consideration, if any, payable to the
alienor or has deposited the same within such time and in such
manner as may be prescribed."

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suo-motu
revisional power exercised by the Joint Collector under Sub-section (4) of
E Section 50-B of the Act was fully justified, in the absence of prescription of
period of limitation for the exercise of suo-motu power; such power could be
exercised at any time as per the said sub-section; the concept of reasonable
time cannot be imported into the said provision; as such the exercise of suo-
motu power even after fifteen years by the Joint Collector was valid and
F justified. The Tehsildar had issued certificates validating the transactions
without following proper procedure and he had acted with material irregularity
in issuing validation certificates; the validation certificates were obtained by
the non-official respondents fraudulently to defeat the provisions of the Land
Ceiling Act, 1961.

G In opposition, the learned counsel for the non-official respondents
strongly contended that the suo- motu power exercised by the Joint Collector
after a period of 13-15 years was who~ly arbitrary and illegal; even in the
absence of prescription of period of limitation under sub-Section (4) of Section
50-B of the Act suo-motu power ought to be exercised within a reasonable

H
IBRAHIMPATNAMTALUKVYAVASA YACOOLIESANGHAMv. K.SURESHREDDY[PA TIL, J.] 7()7

time; the use of the words 'at any time' in the said sub-Section must be A
properly understood and construed, otherwise exercise of such power aft~r
lapse of several years, may be after decades, leads to arbitrary exercise of
power resulting in serious consequences unsettling the settled positions anri
may be in some cases affect the rights of third parties; further, uncertainty
cannot be allowed to prevail indefinitely. It was further contended that the
appellants did not present their case either before the learned Single Judge B
or before the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that the non-
official respondents had committed fraud in sec\jring validation certificates
and as such period of limitation could be reckoned from the date of discovery
of fraud. The learned counsel also submitted that the transfers of immoveable
properties in question, made prior to 1972, could not be upset when several C
changes have taken place. In some cases further transfers have taken place;
the declarations filed by the holders of the lands under the provisions of the
Land Ceiling Act and the orders passed thereon have attained finality.
According to the learned counsel, under these circumstances, no fault can be
found with the impugned order of the Division Bench of the ·High Court
affinning the order passed by the learned Single Judge. D
It is evident from the order of the learned Single Judge that the appellants
did not urge that exercise of suo-motu power was justified on account of the
fraud committed by the non-official respondents in obtaining the validation
certificates and that the power was exercised within reasonable period from
date of detection or discovery of fraud. In the light of the contentions made E
on behalf of the parties the learned Single Judge raised the following two
questions for consideration: -

"(1) Whether exercise of suo-motu power under sub-section 4 of
Section 50B of the Act has to be within the reasonable period
under the said provision, it can be exercised at any time. F
(2) Whether the order of the Joint Collector canceling the validation
certificates, is correct in law."

Even before the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ appeals,
the appellants did not contend that the suo-motu power could be exercised G
even after long delay of 13-15 years because of the fraudulent acts of the non~
official respondents. The focus of attention before the Division Bench was
only on the language of sub-Section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act as to
whether the suo-motu power could be exercised at any time strictly sticking
to the language of that sub-Section or it could be exercised within reasonable
H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A time. In the absence of necessary and sufficient particulars pleaded as regards
fraud and the date or period of discovery of fraud and more so when contention
that the suo-motu power could be exercised within a reasonable period from
the date of discovery of fraud was not urged, the learned Single Judge as well
as the Division Bench of the High Court were right in not examining the
question of fraud alleged to have been committed by the non-official
B respondents. Use of the words "at any time" in sub-sectiOn (4) of Section 50-
B of the 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
depended on facts and circumstances of each case. In cases of fraud, this
C power could be exercised within a reasonable time from the date of detection
or discovery of fraud. While exercising such power, several factors 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 bona fide transfers, the orders attaining finality under the
provisions of other Acts (such as Land Ceiling Act). Hence, it appears
D without stating from what date the period of limitation· starts and within what
period the suo-motu powers is to be exercised, in sub-section (4) of Section
.50-B of the Act, the words "at any time" are used so that the suo-motu power
could be exercised within reasonable period from the date of discovery of
fraud depending on facts and circumstances of each case in the context of
E 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 be rigidly read letter by
letter. It must be read and construed contextually and reasonably. If one has
to simply proceed on the basis of dictionary meaning of words "at any time",
the suo-motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act could
be exercised even after decades and then it would lead to anomalous position
F leading to uncertainty an4 complications seriously affecting the rights of the
parties, that too, over immovable properties. Orders attaining finality and
certainty of the rights of the parties accrued in the light of the orders passed
must have sanctity. Exercise of suo-motu power "at any time" only means that
no specific period such as days, months or years are not prescribed reckoning
G from a particular date. But that does not mean that "at any time" should be
unguided and arbitrary. In this view, "at any time" must be understood as
within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of each
case in the absence of prescribed period of limitation ..

This Court in a recent decision in D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India
H and Anr., [2003] 6 sec 186, after referring and quoting passages from Justice
JBRAHIMPATNAMTALUKVYAVASAYACOOLIESANGHAMv.K.SURESHREDDY[PATIL,J.] 709

G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation observed that "Reading A
word for word and assigning a literal meaning to Section 48-AA would lead
to absurdity, futility and to such consequences as Parliament could have
never intended. The provision has an ambiguity and is capable of being read
in more ways than one. We must, therefore, assign the provision a m1::aning
- and so read it - as would give life to an otherwise lifeless letter and enable
the power of review conferred thereby being me~ningfully availed and B
effectively exercised."

In Principles of Statutory Interpretation (8th Edn.,2001 ), the author ha!:
stated thus:-

"It may look somewhat paradoxical that plain meaning rule is not plain C
and requires some explanation. The rule, that plain words require no
construction, starts with the premise that the words are plain, which
is itself a conclusion reached after construing the words. It is not
possible to decide whether certain words are plain or ambiguous
unless they are studied in their context and construed."
D
The author has stated again as under:-

"In selecting out of different interpretations 'the court will adopt that
which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none
of those things', as it may be presumed 'that the legislature sho.uld
have used the word in that interpretation which least offends our E
sense of justice'."

The learned Single Judge has referred to and relied on various dedsions
including the decisions of this Court as to how the use of the words 'at any
time' in sub-Section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act should be understood. In
the impugned order the Division Bench of the High Court approves and F
affirms the decision of the learned Single Judge. Where a statute provides any
suo-motu power of revision without prescribing any period of limitation, the
power must be exercised within a reasonable time and what is 'reasonable
time' has to be determined on the facts of each case.
G
In the light of what is stated above, we are of the view that the Division
Bench of the High Court was right in affirming the view of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court that the suo-motu power under sub-section (4) of
Section 50-B of the Act is to be exercised within a reasonable time.

H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons given in the Bill
leading to the Act No. VI of 1964 that as per Section 4 7 of the Act, as it stood
prior to its amendment by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1959, no pennanent alienation or other
transfer of agricultural land shall be valid unless it was made with the previous
B sanction of the Collector. But in p_ractice the requirements of Sections 47, 48
and 49 of the Act had not been followed and alienations and transfers had
been effected on a considerable scale without the previous pennission of the
Collector, by means of oral agreement, unregistered documents, etc. The
Government, in the year 1953 undertook land census operations throughout
the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. On the basis of the census the names of
C the persons in actual possession of lands were entered without reference tp
their lawful title thereto. Preparation of the record on the basis of the census
created a mistaken impression in the public that the Government recognized
the sales that had taken place in contravention of the relevant statutes.
Therefore, instructions were issued on 14.5.1957 that the Subordinate Revenue
Officers might take suo-motu action to omit from the records the names of
D persons, who had already been recorded therein as occupants but whose
possession was not lawful. Consequently representations had been received
that the implementation of those instructions would result in great hardship,
particularly, as the lands in many cases were sold by the landlords to tenants,
in view of the current and impending land refonn measures. Section 12 of the
E Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1961 provided that no
person whose holding was in excess of the ceiling area on the date on which
the assent of the President to the Act was first published in the Andhra
Pradesh Gazette of 21.2.1961 shall alienate his holding or any part thereof until
the requirements specified in that Section were fulfilled. Under the
circumstances the Government decided that alienation or other transfers of
F agricultural lands that took place on or after I 0.6.1950 but before 21.2.1961,
without obtaining the previous sanction of the Collector under Section 47 of
the Act should be validated by the issue of a certificate by Tehsildar on an
application filed within one year from the date of coming into effect of the
proposed Legislation, if possession of such land was given to the alienee or
G transferee before 21.2.1961 and if the alienee or transferee deposits in the
office of the Tehsildar an amount equal to the registration fee and the stamp
duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been
effected by a registered document.

The learned Single Judge has noticed that in Telangana area of the State
H there had been in vogue the practice of executing the sale deeds on plain
IBRAIIlMPATNAMTALUKVYAVASAYACOOLIESANGHAMv.K.SURESHREDDY[PA TIL, J.] 711

papers to record the transactions of sale. This fact was even taken note by A
Act VI of 1964 when Section 50-B was inserted in the Act. This Section
originally provided a period of one year for validation of sale deeds, which
was later extended to three years by Act 11 of 1965. Again, by Act 12of1967
the period was extended to four years and later to six years by Act 19 of 1968.
Later by Act No. 12 of 1969 sub-Section (I) was substituted and a proviso
was added to sub-Section (2). Sub-Section (4) of the sa:d S.:ction with which B
we are concerned in these cases was inserted by Act No. 12 of 1979.

The learned Single Judge recorded in his order, "Now coming to the
second point, it has already been pointed out above, the period of validation
was extended from time to time from 31.3.1972. The Joint Collector recorded C
a finding of fact that the possession of the land in question was given in 1965,
but however held that as the possession was not transferred to the vendee
on or before 21.2.1961, and the application for validation was made on 24.3.1972,
the validation certificate is illegal. Admittedly the application was made within
the extended time. The transaction of sale which was validated, was entered
into in 1965 and pursuant to it possession was also given in 1965, as such D
validation certificate cannot be held to be bad in law. For these reasons the
orders questioned in the· C.R.Ps and the W.Ps cannot be sustained even on
merits."

The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order dealing
with the second question set out in the order of the learned Single Judge, E
while confirming the finding observed, thus: -

"So far as the second question is concerned, there is also no scope
for interference. Admittedly, the time for filing the applications stood
extended till March, 1972 and the applications for validation certificates
were made prior to that. It is urged before us that the Joint Collector F
in his order found the alienations to have been made to defeat the
provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1973. The submission is that acceptable
since the requirement of Section 508 is that the alienations, to justify
cancellation of the validation certificates, must have been made
inconsistent with the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1961. The G
transactions of sale having taken place in the year 1965 and possession
having been handed over then, the respondents could not have
purchased the lands and the other respondents could not have sold
those lands to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1973. It is
submitted that because of the provisions of Section 18 of the A.P.
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A General Clauses Act, the reference of the Ceiling Act, 1961 in Section
SOB should be read as referring to the Ceiling Act, 1973. We are
unable to agree tQ such interpretation and application of Section 18
of the General Clauses Act. When the law specifically says that a
certificate should be refused only if the transactions had been mad€'.
inconsistent with the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1961 and such
B provision was made in the context of validating sales, which had been
effected between the two periods of time stipulated in sub-Section
l(A) and (B) of Section SOB the inconsistency referred to have to be
construed as relating to only the Ceiling Act, 1961 and not the Ceiling
Act, 1973."
c From the'se findings of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge as well
as by the Division Bench of the High Court that the certificates issued by
the Tehsildar were valid and the order of the Joint Collector canceling the
validation certificates was not correct in law, we have good reason to agree
with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court on this question.
D
It is also necessary to note that suo-motu power was sought to be
exercised by the Joint Collector after 13-15 years. Section 50-B was amended
in the year 1979 by adding sub-Section (4), . but no action was taken to
invalidate the certificates in exercise of suo-motu power till 1989. There is no
convincing explanation as to why the authorities waited for such a Jong time.
E It appears that sub-Section (4) was added so as to take action where alienations
or transfers were made to defeat the provisions ofthe Land Ceiling Act. The
Land Ceiling Act having come into force on 1.1.1975, the authorities should
have made inquiries and efforts so as to exercise suo-motu power within
reasonable time. The action of the Joint Collector in exercising suo-motu
F power after several years and not within reasonable period and passing
·orders canceling validation certificates given by Tehsildar, as Tightly held by
the High Court, could not be sustained.
'·
The non-official respondents have taken stand that they had filed
declarations before the Ceiling authorities under the Land Ceiling Act, 1973
G showing the lands in question as their holdings and the orders were passed
on such declarations; unsettling such position may mean even reopening the
ceiling proceedings, which have become final Jong back. The Division Bench
of the High Court in this regard in the impugned order has observed that
"Exercise of such power after 14 to 15 years is ipso facto unreasonable. There
is absolute no explanation before us as to why though Section SOB was
H
IBRAHIMPATNAMTALUKVYAVASAYACOOLIESANGHAMv.K.SURESHREDDY[PATIL,J.] 713

amended in the year 1979, the Joint Collector waited till 1989 to invoke the A
power. Every man has the legitimate expectation ofregarding a set of things,
or facts which have continued over a period of time, to have become settled
so that he can plan his future course of action on the basis of such acceptable
situation. Unsettling such facts after long delay upsets not only his entire
programme but also affects in the long run the society itself. Even in the
present case, the respondents have taken the stand th~t they filed returns B
> before the ceiling authorities under the Ceiling Act, 1973, showing these lands
as their holdings and that such plea had been upheld. Unsettling such
position may mean even reopening the ceiling proceedings which must have
become final long time back. In that view of the matter, we agree with the
observations of the learned Single Judge in that respect." C
The appellant is a society of agricultural labourers. and their interest is
that if the validation certificates are set aside, the non official respondents will
have to surrender excess land held by them and in that event they would
apply for assignment of the lands to the Government and they have a chance
of the land to be assigned to them. It is thus clear that the interest of the D
appellant is remote. Hence, it may not be appropriate to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the
order of the learned Single Judge on the facts found. Further, the State or
authorities of the State are not in appeal before this Court.

Against the order passed by the Joint Collector canceling the validation E
certificates issued by the Tehsildar exercising suo-motu power under sub-
section (4) of Section 50B of the Act, some parties filed civil revision petitions
and some filed writ petitions before the High Court. The learned Single Judge
passed the common order allowing the civil revision petitions and writ petitions
setting aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector. The appellant filed
Special Leave Petition (C) No._ _/1994 (CC No. 27066) before this Court
F
challenging the validity of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in
civil revision petitions. The appellant also filed writ appeals against the very
common order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the
High Court, which were dismissed by the impugned order. The special leave
petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that the appellant would G
agitate the matters in the writ appeals, which were pending in the High Court.

Having regard to all aspects that have come to light in these appeals
and that too at this length of time, we do not think it appropriate to interfere
with the impugned order. Thus we find no merit in these appeals. Consequently,
H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A they are dismissed with no order as to costs.
The Office Report dated 14. 7.2003 shows that some of the respondents
have died and some of them have not been served with notice but the
appellant had not taken necessary steps to bring the LRs on record and to
serve the unserved respondents.
B
Civil Appeal No. 6504 of 2003

(@ S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16875 of 1996)

Leave granted.
c The order passed in Civil Appeal Nos. l 0787-10795of1996 governs this
case also. Hence no separate order is needed to be passed in this case.
Accordingly it is disposed of. No costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1891 and 1892 of 1998
D
These two appeals are directed against the common order passed by the
High Court in two Civil Revision Petitions No. 2722 and 2935 of 1991, one filed
by the vendor and the other filed by the vendee. The facts of these cases
also are similar'to the facts bro!idly set out in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10795
of 1996. Unlike in the other appeals, in these appeals the revision petitions
E filed by the vendors and vendees of the lands in question were dismissed by
the High Court affirming the order passed by the Joint Collector exercising
the suo-motu power under Section 50-B(4) of the Act. In the order under
challenge, learned Single· Judge of the High Court, setting out the facts and
contentions in sufficient details, held that the order passed by the Joint
F Collector against these appellants was valid and justified. On the question of
exercise of suo-motu power within the reasonable time, the High Court found
that the suo-motu power could be exercised to take action within reasonable
time from the date the fraud was detected or discovered. According to the
learned Judge of the High Court, the suo-motu power was exercised by the
Joint Collector within a reasonable time from the date of discovering the fraud
G in this case. In the result, the validation certificates issued in favour of the
appellants as cancelled by the Joint.Collector is affirmed by the High Court.

The learned counsel appearing on either side in their arguments reiterated
the· submissions that were made before the High Court. Their arguments were
similar to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in
H
IBRAHIMPATNAMTALUKVYAVASAYACOOLIESANGHAMv.K.SURFSHREDDY[PATIL,J.] 715

Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10795 of 1996 as regards question of limitation is A
concerned.

These appeals stand on a different footing inasmuch as the question
of fraud in obtaining the validation certificates and the validity of transfers
was specifically raised. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has
taken pains to narrate the facts in sufficient details and has considered the B
respective contentions advanced on behalf of either side and recorded a
finding that the fraud alleged against the appellants was established. The
learned Single Judge also referred to the common order passed by the learned
Single Judge in Civil Revision Petitions No. 3095, 3096, 3099, 3197, 3198, 3199,
3200, 3203 and 3100 ofl989 and Writ Petition Nos. 13565, 13566, 13567, 13568, C
13569 and 13603 of 1989 and as well as the orders passed by the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal Nos. 929, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1332, 1337, 1507 and
1508 of 1993, which are the subject matter of afore-mentioned Civil Appeal
Nos. 10787-10795of1996. The learned Single Judge has distinguished those
cases stating that in these appeals, as noted above, the fraud alleged against
the appellants was established and the action was taken exercising suo-motu D
power within a reasonable time having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case that came to the light.

In the light of these findings of fact recorded by the learned Single
Judge based on material placed on {ecord and supported by cogent reasons,
we do not find any valid reason or good ground to interfere with the impugned E
order. Consequently these appeals are liable to be dismissed. Hence they are
dismissed. No costs.

S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.