The Collector's power under Section 50-B(4) of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to revise certificates issued by the Tahsildar must be exercised within a reasonable time, and the parties affected by the Collector's decision must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend their case.

( 1 ) THIS Revision is filed against the order of the Joint Collector, karimnagar, dated 21-3- 1983 setting aside the proceedings of the Tahsildar under Section 50-B of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricutural lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) validating the sale of land by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner.

( 2 ) THE Tahsildar, Karimnagar, after conducting an enquirey issued the contificate under Section 50-B of the Act validating the sale of a curtain extent of land by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner on 3-2-1977. According to the petitioners the transaction took place some time in 1960 and the vendee has been in possession ever since.

( 3 ) THE 1st petitioner filed a declaration excluding the said land on the ground that it belonged to the 2nd petitioner.

( 4 ) ON 2-6-1981 a notice was issued by the Joint Collector, Karimnagar asking the petitioners to show cause why the certificate granted by he tahsildar should not be cancelled on the ground that such certificate was obtained by misrepresentation, that the transaction is sham and bogua and the alienation was made sometime in 1971 during the prohibted period with a view to get over the ceiling laws and that the Tahsildar bas issued the certificate without following the proper procedure in conducting the enqury it was also mentioned in, the show cause notice that the Collector while verifying the Section 50-B cases, detected the present case and the notice was issued immediately thereafter. The petitioners submitted a explaination. The case was posted for enquiry, and ultmatly the Joint Collector, Karimnagar passed an order on 21-3-1983 holding that the transaction is a sham and bcgus one that the vendee has been in possession only from 1971 to 1973 and there is no evidence to show that the vendee has been in possession from 1960 as alleged by them. He was also of the view that the transaction is not a genuine one and the vendee has not been showing any interest and all the time it was only the uerdcr that was following the case.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioners filed the present petition. Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a two-fold submission : (1) the exercise of the power by the Collector three years after the certificate was issued by the Tahsildar is illegal and without jurisdiction. Though no period was prescribed under the Act the power should be exercised within a reasonable time and three years cannot be said to be reasonable ; and (2) the petitioners were not given a reasonable opportunity to defend their case.

( 6 ) TO decide the first question it is necessary to refer to Section 50-B of the Act. "50-B. Validation of certain alienations and other transfer of agricultural lands : (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, where any alienation or other transfer of agricultural land took place (a) On or after the 10th June. 1950, but before the date of coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural holdings Act, 1961 and where possession of such land was given to the alienee or transferee before such date of coming into force ; and (b) x x x x (2) x x x x (3) The validation of any alienation or transfer of any land under sub-fection (2) shall not affect the right accrued to any person under Section 37-A or Section 38 of 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 Tahsildar under this Section for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such certificate or as to the regularity of such proceedings and pass such order in relation there to as he may think fit: provided that no order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this sub-section unless such person has had an opportunity of making his representation thereto. "it is seen from sub-section (4) that the Collecto