The exercise of suo moto revisional power after a long lapse of time is prima facie arbitrary and unreasonable, and the absence of arbitrariness in the exercise of vested power is a reiteration of the principles of the prevalence of the Rule of Law.

LEVGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ appeals filed at the instance of respondent no. 3 in the corresponding writ petitions and the corresponding writ appeals filed by the State are taken up together and are disposed of by this commonorder since the facts relating to the cases are almost identical innature and the writ petitions along with certain other Civil Revision petitions were disposed of by a common judgment. Briefly stated the facts are that Ac. 833. 37 cents of land was purported to have been alienated by the land holders k. Ramachandra Reddy and his family members in the year 1965 to different persons, who and whose legal representatives are the petitioners in the Writ Petitions and the respondents in these appeals. The sales were effected by unregistered sale deeds. Later on, section 50 (B) was introduced in the Andhra pradesh Telangana Area Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act )on5-2-1964, authorising the Tahsildar to validate such alienations of land effected without registered deeds. The provisions was further amended by Act 12 of 1969 on 18-3-1969 extending time for filing of the application till March, 1972. The applications were made by the respondents between 23-3-l972 and 29-3-l 972 for validation of the sales which were allowed and validation certificates were issued by the Tahsildar in the years 1974 and 1975. Since many cases of fradulentissues of validation certificates were noticed, the Collectors were vested, by way of an amendment of Section 50 (B) of the Act by act 2 of 79, with suo moto revisional powers to cancel or uphold the certificates. Suo moto proceedings were initiated bythe Joint Collector on27-4-1989 issuing notices to the transferees and the transferors to show cause as to why the validation certificates should not be cancelled and thereafter, after hearing the parties orders were passed on 11-9-1989 cancelling the certificates. The writ petitions were filed by the respondents assailing the impugned order, which petitions having been allowed, the present writ appeals have been preferred. It needs to be mentioned that C. R. P. Nos. 3095, 3096, 3069, 3197, 3198, 3199, 3200, 3203 and 3100 of 1989 werealsofiled against the someorders,identical in nature, passed by the Joint Collector. The civil Revision Petitions and the Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment bythe learned single Judge. It is the common case of the parties that while the judgment in the writ petitions was as saided in the present writ appeals, the judgment so far as the Civil Revision petitions is concerned, was assailed in Special leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed as with drawn. Thus, the common Judgment disposing of the Civil revision Petitions and the Writ Petitions has already become final, so far as Civil Revision petitions are concerned.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 in the writ petitions is a Society of Agricultural workers ofthe locality at whose instance the suo moto revision proceedings were initiated by the Joint Collector. Though the order of the Joint Collector shows that the proceedings were initiated at the instance ofthe Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, it is the submission of Mr. Manohar, the learned counsel for the appellants that respondentno. 3 had filed the application on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated and that if the transactions in respect of the land stand invalidated, the members of the society would gain by seeking assignment of the land to them.

( 3 ) THE leamed single Judge allowed the writ petitions on the twin considerations that the purported action of suo moto proceedings initiated after 13 to 15 years was unwarranted and could not be considered as reasonable exercise of the suo moto power and on the ground that since the Joint Collector found the respondents to have been put in possession of the lands in the years 1965,their applications for issue of validation certificates had been made within

Click Here to Read the rest of this document