IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdictional questions can be considered by an authority deciding the question whether proceeding was validly initiated or not.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These appeals involve common points and are directed against a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is as follows:

2. Proceedings were initiated by the District Collector, Hyderabad under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (in short the Prohibition Act ) read with Section 166(B) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1950 (in short the Tenancy Act ). The suo motu action was taken on the ground that there were irregular assignments in favour of the original assignees and there were clear violations of several stipulations and conditions provided under the Special Loani Rules (in short the Rules ). Transfers made by the original assignees were illegal. The land situated in Banjara hills area of Shaiktpet village, a prime locality and in view of the contraventions of the conditions stipulated under Sections 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act, the assignments were to be cancelled. As there was no response in spite of valid notice, order of cancellation was passed on 18-12-1984. It was indicated that even though newspaper advertisement was issued requiring the noticees to show cause, it did not bring any result. There was no response on the date fixed. The said order was challenged before a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, who taking note of the respective stands of the parties disposed of the writ applications, inter alia, with the following directions:

"Simply because 30 years had elapsed by the date of filing of the writ petition, it does not mean that the proceedings have to be automatically closed in spite of the divergent claims by the private individuals and the State which required the consideration by the authority concerned. The impugned order is quashed to the extent of the petitioners concerned and the petitioners are directed to submit their objections before the authority within two months from today. The same shall be entertained by the competent authority who issued notice in the paper calling for objections under Section 166-B of the Act and be disposed of on merits according to law."

Said order was challenged before a Division Bench which by the impugned judgment 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. It was noted that no purpose would be served by permitting the District Collector to decide the case afresh after hearing the parties at this distance of time. Accordingly, the impugned order of cancellation was set aside by upsetting the directions of learned Single Judge.

3. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh and its functionaries submitted that approach of the Division Bench was clearly on untenable premises. Reference was made to Section 3 of the Prohibition Act, 1977 to contend that it contains a deemed provision, and assignments before and after the commencement of the Prohibition Act were covered. The said Act was enacted in the year 1977. When specific instances of illegal assignments came to the notice of the authorities, a special task force was constituted in the year 1981 and on the basis of decision taken by the concerned authorities action for cancellation was initiated. Proper opportunity was given to the parties which they failed to avail. On equitable consideration, learned Single Judge had permitted a fresh adjudication. There was no reason for the Division Bench to set aside the directions given by learned Single Judge as there cannot be any rigid formula to determine as to what would be a reasonable period of time. On the facts of the present case, the action cannot be said to have been taken after a long period.

4. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Prohibition Act has no appli