IMPORTANT POINTS
Even in absence of any period of limitation, suo motu exercise of revisional power must be made within reasonable period of time, particularly when third party rights are created or accrued.
Even if fraud is alleged the power must be exercised within reasonable period of discovery of the fraud.

Headnote:Per C. Nagappan, J.
       (a) Words and Phrases – Khasra – Khasra is a register recording the incidents of a tenure – It is a historical record – It would serve the purpose of a deed of title, when there is no other title deed. (Para 9)
       (b) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F (1907) – Section 166B – Predecessors in title of respondents recorded in Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55 – Respondents purchasing the lands by registered sale deed – Regularly paying revenue continuously since 1954 – Appellant State issuing notice for cancellation of entries in the Khasra Pahani on 31.12.2004 fixing date of inquiry as 5.2.2005 – Regulation 166B not prescribing any time limit for suo motu revision of entries – Government reserving lands for house-sites to the government employees in 1991 – Could have verified land records and corrected – Taking no exception to the entries – Respondents challenging reserving order of 1991 in 1997 – Appellant not initiating any action even then – Respondents filing suit for declaration of title in 2001 – Suit decreed and becoming final – Suo motu revision power under Regulation 166B sought to be exercised after five decades while appellant State had several occasions before to do so – Not permissible. (Para 10, 11, 12)
       (1969) 2 SCC 187; (2009) 9 SCC 352; (2007) 11 SCC 363; (2003) 7 SCC 667 – Impliedly relied upon
       (2003) 4 SCC 488; (1993) 3 SCC 326; (1995) Supp.(3) SCC 249 – Impliedly distinguished
       Per T.S. Thakur, J.
       (c) Administration of Justice – Judgment – Applicability – Government reserving 477 Acres of land for house sites to Government employees – Respondents claiming ownership to 90 acres only challenging the same – This decision would pertain to respondents only and not to others. (Para 5)
       (d) Administration of Justice – Revisional power – Exercise of – Undue delay – Always frowned upon – Particularly where third parties rights created or accrued – Even in cases of alleged fraud Revision power should be exercised within reasonable period of discovery of fraud. (Para 11)
       (1976) 2 SCC 181; (2003) 7 SCC 667; (2010) 8 SCC 467; (2004) 10 SCC 585; (1992) 2 SCC 598 – Relied upon
       (2009) 9 SCC 352; (2004) 3 SCC 440 – Referred
       (e) Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F (1907) – Section 166B – Appellant State seeking revision of Khasra Pahani entries on ground of fraud – Not mentioning when fraud detected – Specific statement before High Court in that regard was essential being jurisdictional fact to show that action taken was within reasonable period thereof – Appellant must be presumed to have known about records in 1991 when it reserved lands for housing sites for Government employees – Notice issued after 13 years – No explanation for delay – Not permissible – Rightly quashed by High Court. (Para 12)

       Facts of the case:
       Gopanpally village in Ranga Reddy district was a Jagir village. Survey Nos.36 and 37 measuring Ac 280.00 guntas and Ac.378.14 guntas of the said village were Jagir lands and Jagirdar had given Pattas to different persons who were in possession of the lands and after abolition of Jagirs the same were reflected as Pattas in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 which was prepared under Section 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in land Regulation, 1358F and subsequently the Pattadars had alienated the lands to the petitioners under registered sale deeds and they are in possession of the same. It is their further case that Patta was granted to an extent of Acre 44-00 in Survey No.36 and to an extent of acre 46-00 in Survey No.37.
       The petitioners on inquiry came to know that the Government has reserved and allotted a total extent of 477 acres in Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally village for house sites to the Government employees, and the Patta lands of the petitioners are also sought to be included within the area reserved.
       The petitioners challenged the same by filing writ petition No.21719 of 1997.
       The writ petitioners have further stated that the Respondent No.1 at the instance of Respondent No.2 had issued notice dated 19.12.2003 to the writ petitioners and others stating that on verification of records i.e. namely Faisal Patti for the year 1953-54 in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally village there is no “Ain Izafa” (i.e.) (implementation of changes) taken place in respect of the said land and the entries in the Khasra Pahani appears to be incorporated by the then Patwari without order from the competent authority and an enquiry under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land to Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, is scheduled for hearing on 27.12.2003.
       The writ petitioners challenged the said notice by filing Writ Petition No.26987 of 2003.
       The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition by order dated 30.8.2004 and set aside the impugned show cause notice.
       Further, the first respondent on the very same basis issued subsequent notice dated 31.12.2004 for enquiry under Section 166B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F fixing the date of hearing on 5.2.2005.
       The petitioners challenged the same in writ petition No.1731 of 2005.
       The single Judge of the High Court heard both the writ petitions i.e. 21719 of 1997 and 1731 of 2005 together.
       The single Judge set aside the impugned Government order insofar as the lands held by the writ petitioners to the total extent of Acre 90-00 in Survey Nos.36 and 37 are concerned and also set aside the impugned notice dated 31.12.2004 and accordingly allowed the writ petitions.
       The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the writ appeals.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court rightly quashed the impugned notice. This judgment is qua respondents only, not qua other persons.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 8.6.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No.273 and 323 of 2010 by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

3. Broadly speaking, the facts leading to filing of these appeals are as follows: There is no dispute that Gopanpally village in Ranga Reddy district was a Jagir village. According to the writ petitioners Survey Nos.36 and 37 measuring Ac 280.00 guntas and Ac.378.14 guntas of the said village were Jagir lands and Jagirdar had given Pattas to different persons who were in possession of the lands and after abolition of Jagirs the same were reflected as Pattas in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 which was prepared under Section 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in land Regulation, 1358F and subsequently the Pattadars had alienated the lands to the petitioners under registered sale deeds and they are in possession of the same. It is their further case that Patta was granted to an extent of Acre 44-00 in Survey No.36 and to an extent of acre 46-00 in Survey No.37 and while the matter stood thus, the petitioners on inquiry came to know that the Government has reserved and allotted a total extent of 477 acres in Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally village for house sites to the Government employees by Government Orders dated 10.7.1991 and 24.9.1991, without mentioning the sub-division Nos. of the survey numbers and the Patta lands of the petitioners are also sought to be included within the area reserved and the petitioners challenged the same by filing writ petition No.21719 of 1997 on the file of the High Court. The writ petitioners have further stated that the Respondent No.1 at the instance of Respondent No.2 had issued notice dated 19.12.2003 to the writ petitioners and others stating that on verification of records i.e. namely Faisal Patti for the year 1953-54 in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally village there is no “Ain Izafa” (i.e.) (implementation of changes) taken place in respect of the said land and the entries in the Khasra Pahani appears to be incorporated by the then Patwari without order from the competent authority and an enquiry under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land to Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, is scheduled for hearing on 27.12.2003 and the writ petitioners challenged the said notice by filing Writ Petition No.26987 of 2003 and the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition by order dated 30.8.2004 and set aside the impugned show cause notice. It is further stated by the writ petitioners that the first respondent on the very same basis issued subsequent notice dated 31.12.2004 for enquiry under Section 166B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F fixing the date of hearing on 5.2.2005 and the petitioners challenged the same in their writ petition No.1731 of 2005 and the learned single Judge of the High Court heard both the writ petitions i.e. 21719 of 1997 and 1731 of 2005 together.

4. The said writ petitions were resisted by the Government by stating that the Jagirs were abolished on 15.8.1948 by the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 fasli and the pre-existing rights in all the Jagirs were taken away and as per the Khasra Pahani for the year 195455 the sub-divisions were made under Survey Nos.36 and 37 of the village Gopanpally fraudulently by the Patwari and those sub-divisions and names were not approved by Nizam Jamabandi in Faisal Patti during the year 1954-55 as per the procedure in vogue and the schedule land bearing survey Nos. 36 and 37 from the time of Jagir abolition on 15.8.1948 is classified as Chinna Kancha (grazing land) and it belongs to the Government and the said unauthorized entries in Khasara Pahani made by the then Patwari were detected by the Revenue Authorities and hence enquiry has been ordered under Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 26

Cases Referred (14)