IBRAHIMPATNAM TALUK VYAVASAYA COLLIE SANGHAM Vs. K SURESH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these appeals, the following question of law arises for consideration:-

(2.) Broadly stated, the facts leading to filing of these appeals are the following:- Various sale deeds were exercised by owners of the lands in favour of different persons on plain papers. Pursuant to said deeds, possession of 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 Lands 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 filed by Special 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 issued on 1974 or earlier should not be cancelled. After considering the objection 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, some 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 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 exercised at any time. In that view, he held that the Joint Collector was not correct in law in cancelling 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) invoking suo motu power. The appellant in all these appeals aggrieved by and not satisfied with, filed writ appeals before 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 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 representation within two months. Under these circumstances, 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.

(3.) 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. Section 50-B of the Act reads:-