B. Sudarshan Reddy vs Joint Collector, R.R. Dist, Hyderabad and Another

These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed to set aside the order dated: 19-8-1991 passed by the Joint Collector, R.R. District in Proceedings No.B4/1 1628/89.

The facts, in brief, resulting in filing of these revision petitions are:

An application for validation of an unregistered sale deed was submitted to the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam on 31-3-1972 u/s 50-B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as the Act) alleging that the lands in S.Nos. 197, 200, 201, 206, 207, 252, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262 & 263 situated in Kappapahad village in Ibrahimpatnam Mandal admeasuring 98.21 acres were purchased for valuable consideration from one Yella Reddy and that the purchasers have been in possession of the same since the date of sale. The Tahsildar issued validation Certificate u/s 50-B of the Act on 10-5-1972 after due enquiry in the names of P.Srinivasa Reddy, V.Narayana Reddy and V.Rosi Reddy. Their names were also mutated in the revenue records on 17-6-1974, after deleting the name of B.Sudhersan Reddy, son of the pattedar Yella Reddy.

One B. Jangaiah, a resident of Kappappahad village sent a petition, dated 5-1-1989 to the District Collector, R.R. District alleging that the said Validation Certificate, dated 10-5-1972 issued u/s 50-B of the Act was obtained, benami by B. Sudershan Reddy with a view to circumvent the provisions under Land Ceiling Act. That petition was forwarded to the Revenue Officials for enquiry. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East division by his letter dated: 29-9-1989 reported that B. Sudarshan Reddy had managed to get an area of 98.20 Acres transferred in the names of the said persons to circumvent the provisions of Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1973. The Joint Collector, R.R. District got the matter further enquired. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East division enquired into the matter and informed the Joint Collector by their letters dated 17-10-89 and 21-12-89 respectively. Thereafter, the Joint Collector issued show cause notice, dated: 14-2-1990, purporting to exercise revisionary power under subsection (4) of Section 50-B. of the Act, to B. Sudarshan Reddy, son of the vendor and the vendees to show cause as to why the Certificate dated: 10-5-72 issued u/s 50-B of the Act should not be cancelled. Both Sudhersan Reddy as well as the vendees submitted their explanations to the said show cause notice. After considering their objections/explanations, the Joint Collector by her order dated: 19-8-1991 cancelled the Validation Certificate, dated 10-5-1972 and further, ordered that the lands should be reverted to the original land-holder and be computed to his holding and necessary action be initiated by the authorities concerned. It is the validity of that order of the Joint Collector which is being challenged in these revision-petitions. Sudarshan Reddy, son of the pattedar Yella Reddy filed the revision petition No. 2722/91 and the three vendees filed the revision-petition No.2935/91. During the pendency of these revisions, the revision-petitioners 1 and 2 in CRP No. 2935/91 died and their legal heirs have been brought on record as revision-petitioners 4 to 7.

Sri Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both these CRPs contended that the exercise of revisionary power suo motu under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act after a period of about 18 years is wholly arbitrary and illegal and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further contended" that the Joint Collector proceeded on an erroneous presumption that these lands have been transferred benami with a view to circumvent the provisions of A.P. Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1973 and that there is no basis for such a presumption, and that the transaction was genuine and that the purchasers were put in possession and enjoyment of the lands sold and that their names have been mutated in the revenue records.

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submitted his arguments in support of the impugned order, that the Joint Collector exercised suo motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act in accordance with the public policy for effective implementation of the provisions under AP Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1973 and that no period of limitation for the exercise of suo motu power is prescribed and therefore, the exercise of such power even after 18 years is valid and justified and that there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

At the request of the Court, Sri Mohan Reddy, the learned Advocate assisted this Court and submitted his arguments on line with the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

In view of the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel, the questions that arise for determination are:

(i) Whether the impugned order of the Joint Collector cancelling the Validation Certificate dated 10-5-1972 issued by the former Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam in favour of the revision petitioners 1 to 3 in CRP. No. 2935/91 is just, proper and correct in law?

(ii) Whether the action of the Joint Collector is arbitrary and improper exercise of jurisdiction under subsection (4) of Section 50-B of the Act as it has not been taken within reasonable period from the date of issuance of the Validation Certificate?

Section 50-B of the Act which was inserted by Act 6 of 1964, contemplates that ''Where any alienation or transfer of agricultural land had been made by unregistered deed, but had been entered into (i) on or after 10th June, 1950 but before the date of coming into force of A.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 i.e., 22-1-1961 and where possession of the land has been given to the aligned or transferee before such date, (ii) one or after the coming into force of the A.P. Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 i.e. 21-2-1961, but before the dale of commencement of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act (Third) Amendment Act, 1969 i.e., 18-3-1969 and where possession of the land had been given to the aligned or transferee before 18-3-1969 and the alienation or transfer was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1961, an application could be made by the alignee or the transferee within the prescribed period to the Tahsildar for the issue of a Validation Certificate, the Tahsildar after making enquiry as is prescribed and satisfying himself that the consideration payable to the transferor or the alignor had been paid or deposited within such time and in such manner has had been prescribed, was to direct the alignee or the transferee to deposit the necessary registration fee and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document, and on deposit of such amount, the Tahsildar has to issue the Certificate validating the transfer. This Certificate is popularly known as ''50-B Certificate''. The Practice of executing sale deeds on plain papers to record the transaction of sale of agricultural lands was common in Telangana Area of Andhra Pradesh. This Practice was so common that the Legislature had taken note of this fact and inserted Section 50-B in the statute by Act 6 of 1964. Sub-section (40) of Section 50-B with which we are now concerned, was inserted by Act 2 of 1979 and it reads as under:

"4. The Collector may, suo motu at any time, call for and examine the records 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 proceeding and pass such order in relation thereto 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''''.

Undoubtedly, Section 4 confers suo motu power on the Collector who include Joint Collector to call for and examine the record relating to any certificate issued u/s 50-B of the Act by the Tahsildar for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such certificate. But, before an order adversely affecting any person is passed, he should give an opportunity to such person to make his representation thereto.

In the instant case, as seen from the impugned order, the Joint Collector had issued show cause notice dated 14-2-1990 to the vendees and also the son of the vendor before passing the impugned order. The Joint Collector also considered the objections submitted by them in pursuance of the said show cause notice. Thus, the opportunity as required to be given under proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act was complied with.

It is not disputed that the application for issuing Validation Certificate u/s 50-B of the Act was submitted to the Tahsildar on 31-3-1972, which was the last date fixed for that purpose. The Tahsildar opened the file No. with respect to that application in FileNo.C3/2466/72 and issued the Validation Certificate on 10-5-1972 in the names of P.Srimvasa Reddy, K Narayana Reddy and K Rosi Reddy for a total extent of Acs. 98.20 Acres both dry and wet together, with respect to the S.Nos. stated earlier. The Joint Collector R.R. District by the impugned order dated: 9-8-1991 cancelled that Certificate for the reasons that the alleged sale in favour of the transferees was not genuine and the issuance of the Validation Certificate was irregular and it has been brought into existence to circumvent the provisions of Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1973. The Joint Collector came to such a conclusion based on her findings of facts on a consideration of the reports of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpalnam Mandal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad East Division and also on perusal of the records. As seen from the impugned order, the reasoning and the findings of facts of the Joint Collector are as follows:

"(1) Though the alleged transferees or purchasers were three in number, the application, dated :31-3-1972 submitted for Validation bears the signature of only one person i.e, of P.Srinivasa Reddy and it does not contain the signatures of V.Namyana Reddy and V. Rosi Reddy, Who were said to be the other co-purchasers. Thus there was no application submitted on behalf of V. Narayana Reddy and V. Rosi Reddy, for issuance of Validation Certificate on their behalf and no Validation Certificate u/s 50-B of the Act can be issued in the absence of an application for issuance of the said Certificate.

(ii) A close look at the signature on the application submitted on 31-3-72 reveals that there is an over-writing on the signature and the application originally seems to have been filed by B.Sudherson Reddy and the name of P. Srinivas Reddy was over-written in English on it, and Srinivas Reddy had never put his signature in English in any of the records available with the office and in the proceedings before Collector. The Joint Collector had verified the signatures of P. Srinivas Reddy signed in Telugu and found in Form II issued under Rule 6 under Act 21 of 1950 dated 8-4-72, the Vakalat filed before the Joint Collector as well as in the reply/ explanation submitted to the show cause notice, in the counter affidavit field by Srinivas Reddy to the application filed by third party in the impleading petition. Therefore, the Joint Collector came to the conclusion that it is highly doubtful whether the application dated 31-3-72 in Form I was submitted by P.Srinivasa Reddy as the signature contained on it is not that of P.Srinivasa Reddy.

(iii) The sale deed was said to have been executed in 1959 on a stamp paper of one rupee of the year 1958 and it is not known why 1958 year stamp paper was used for the transaction of 1959 and no explanation is forthcoming.

(iv) Considering the records of the Land Ceiling Tribunal, particularly me Proceedings of the then Sub-Collector, Hyderabad East Division in File No. E/ 4087/62, dated 25-4-1972, the Joint Collector found S.Nos. 177,178,179 and 180 measuring 48.24 Acres was surrendered towards surplus holding by B.Sudhersan Reddy as legal heir of his father Yella Reddy, who submitted the declaration, dated 4-8-1962 under the A.P. Land Ceiling on agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 and observed that Sudarshan Reddy would not have agreed to surrender the same as surplus holding if the lands in question had been actually sold in 1959 itself by his father and therefore, the alleged sale in 1959 is of doubtful authenticity and the revenue records were manipulated on the basis of such document to get over the provisions of Land Ceiling Act and by virtue of these manipulations the surplus of 48-24 Acres of land under the Ceiling Act, 1961 become dwindled to only 5.44 acres on the declaration submitted by Sudarshan Reddy under the Ceiling Act of 1973.

(v) The alleged purchasers are not the residents of the Kappapahad village and their names do not find place in Electoral Roll of the village.

(vi) Sri Jaya Bharath Reddy son of Sudhersan Reddy is now in possession of these lands in question.

(vii) The parties are closely related to each other.

On a consideration of all these facts and circumstances, the Joint Collector gave her finding that the sale transaction was not genuine and the issuance of Validation Certificate by the Tahsildar is irregular and, therefore, she cancelled the Validation Certificate and directed the lands should be reverted back to the original land-holder and be computed to his holding and directed the concerned authorities to initiate necessary action.

I have called for the file No.C3/ 2466/72 relating to the issuance of the Validation Certificate and perused the same. A perusal of the file relating to issuance of the Validation Certificate by the Tahsildar and also the proceedings of the Sub-Collector Hyderabad East Division in E/408762 dated 25-4-1972 discloses that the reasoning and the findings of the Joint Collector given in the impugned order are in confirmity with the entries in those records. The application dated 31-3-1972 in Form I contains only one signature and that signature also is over-written as that of P. Srinivas Reddy in English. But, as observed by the Joint Collector, now where did the said P.Srinivas Reddy signed in English in any of the papers/ documents filed in the proceedings. No application was submitted by the other two alleged transferees for issuance of Validation Certificate, and even the signature in the application dated 31-3-1972 is not that of P.Srinivas Reddy. Hence, as observed by the Joint Collector, it is not known how the Tahsildar could grant the certificate without any application from the alleged purchasers/ transferees.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sudhersan Reddy, the son of the vendor Yella Reddy was also examined and his statement was recorded by the Tahsildar on 22-4-1972 before issuing the Certificate and he identified the signature of his father in the unregistered sale deed of 1959. The file also contains the statement of the said Sudhersan Reddy said to have been recorded on 22-4-1972. But, there is a reference, in the contents of this statement about the order of Sub-Collector, dated 25-4-1972. Therefore, this statement of the said Sudhersan Reddy could not have been recorded on 22-4-1972. Further, the Stamp paper also belongs to the year 1958 while the document was written in 1959 and as observed by the Joint Collector, there is no explanation for using the Stamp paper of 1958 for executing the document in the year 1959.

The fraud played by the parties with the connivance of the revenue officials for issuing such a Validation Certificate is crystal clear when we peruse the proceedings of the Sub-Collector, Hyderabad. East Division in E/4087/1962, dated: 25-4-1972. A perusal of this document discloses that Yella Reddy the land-holder who is also the father of B.Sudarshan Reddy had submitted declaration u/s 5(2) of A.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1961 on 4-8-1962 during his life-time. In the said declaration, he had shown a total extent of 333.33 acres in his declaration which includes the lands in question also. The total holding was valued at 6.66 family holdings and the surplus was determined at 0.66 family holding. The declarant was required to file a statement of lands to be surrendered towards surplus land u/s 7(3) of the Act. But, he failed to file the same within time and therefore, the matter was determined exparte and the lands were finally selected u/s 7(4) of the Act. A notice in Form VI was issued asking the declarant to be present in the office of the Sub-Collector on 24-4-1972 Sudarshan Reddy, the legal heir of the declarant Yella Reddy appeared before the Sub-Collector and gave his consent to surrender the surplus land of 48.24 Acres in S.Nos. 177,178,179 and 180 which are shown in Schedule I of that order and Sndershan Reddy was also permitted to retain the extent of 285.09 acres in the S.Nos. mentioned in Schedule II of that order and that Schedule IT includes the lands in question also. The Joint Collector based on this document, rightly observed that if the sate of the lands in question measuring 98.21 acres in the year 1959 itself was true, the land owner Yella Reddy who was said to have sold the same, would not have shown these lands in his declaration made on 4-8-1962 and his son Sudhersan Reddy also would not have accepted to surrender such a huge extent of 48.24 acres and he would not have failed to seek exemption of the lands under question from the holding, bringing the factum of sale to the notice of the Sub-Collector Hyderabad East Division. It is also significant to note in this context that B. Sudhersan Reddy filed a declaration in April, 1975 u/s 8(1) of AP.Land Records (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 and he had shown the lands in question once again in his declaration but this time he sought for deletion of those lands on the ground that his father had alienated the same and Validation Certificate u/s 50-B of the Act was issued in the names of the purchasers and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad South Division in Proceedings in CC. No. 2508/1/75, dated 26-2-1977 delated the said lands from the computation in the holding of Sudhersan Reddy and assessed the surplus holding at 0.0841 standard holding which comes to 5,44 acre. Further Sndershan Reddy while surrendering the excess land of 5.44 acres, had surrendered it form S.No.177 which according to the proceedings of the Sub-Collector, Hyderabad East Division, dated 25-4-1972 had already been surrendered Further Sudhersan Reddy in his declaration made in 1975 had also shown S. No. 177,178,179 & 180 which were surrendered by him towards the surplus holding as per the declaration of his father Yella Reddy. Thus everything appears to be fishy. Sudhershan Reddy appears to have managed with the Revenue officials at every stage.

Now coming to the cultivation accounts, also known as Adangals or pahani Patriks'' relating to the lands in question which were alleged to have been sold in the year 1959 and the purchasers were said to have been put in possession of the same on the date of sale in 1959, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, relying on certified, copies of the pahanies from the years 1959 onwards, contended that the names of those purchasers have been shown an cultivators since 1960 onwards in the pahanies and they probabalise the sale in favour of the purchasers in the year 1959. The joint Collector in her impugned order made no reference to these cultivation accounts. It appears that she had no occasion to see the originals of these accounts maintained by the village patwari with respect to the lands in question the Joint Collector seems to have been carried away by the true extracts of pahanies submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam alongwith his letter, dated 17-10-1989. It is true that the names of these three purchasers are shown as cultivators in the certified copies of pahani patriks filed by the petitioners in the column relating to the names of cultivators and the name of the pattedar is also shown as Yella Reddy till the year 1972-73.With a view to verify the correctness of these entries, I directed the learned Government Pleader to cause production of the original pahanies and accordingly, the original pahanies for the years from 1960-61 to 1983-84 are produced into Court and I perused the same in the open Court in the presence of both the Counsel. To my surprise, I found the entries, in the column relating to the name of the cultivator, have been manipulated. The names of these three alleged purchasers/ transferees have been inserted after eraser of the original names therein and they are written in different ink and they do not contain any attestation by the village patwari, who had prepared those pahanies. it is like this, for all the S.Nos. in question which were said to have been alienated in their favour in the year 1959. The manipulation of these entries inserting the names of these three transferees in different ink, is patent even to the naked eye. I do not know how the Mandal Revenue Officer failed to inform the Joint Collector on this aspect while submitting the true copies of pahanies. Obviously, in true or certified copies of these pahanies, the names that are found in the pahanies even though they have been inserted in different ink subsequently will be noted. It is only when the originals are looked into the mischief or fraud played thereon will come to light. Based on such true copies furnished by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Joint Collector did not give any finding with regard to the alleged possession of three transferees since the alleged date of sale in their favour. In his letter, dated 17-10-1989 the Mandal Revenue Officer, slates that he made a thorough verification of the pahanies from the years 1955 to 1988. If it were so, definitely he would not have failed to notice these manipulations in the cultivators column in these pahani patriks by inserting the names of these alleged purchasers in different ink. But, for reasons best known to him, the Mandal Revenve Officer suppressed that fact in his letter while enclosing the true copies of pahanies which do not disclose the correct state of facts and thus, misled the Joint Collector.

The learned Government Pleader also submits that these three alleged purchasers are the close relatives of B.Sudhersan Reddy and that with a view to circumvent the provisions of Ceiling Act, 1973, Sudhersan Reddy got these documents manipulated and obtained certificates u/s 50-B of the Act benami in the names of these persons on the basis of a fabricated sale deed. It is not disputed that P.Srinivas Reddy is the father-in-law and the other two, Narayana Reddy and Rosi Reddy are the maternal uncles of Sudhersan Reddy. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that these three persons are residents of different villages in Nalgonda District possessing vast extents of lands in their villages. There is no reason for these three persons to purchase these lands jointly. The finding of fact by the Joint Collector that even at present the purchasers are not in possession of these lands and that Jaya Barath Reddy son of Sudhersan Reddy, is in possession of the same, is also borne out by record as seen from the pahani patriks. Thus, the alleged purchasers were never in possession of the lands in question and the entries in original pahanies have been manipulated to show as if they were in possession of the same. Another circumstance which throws doubt regarding the alleged sale and possession of the disputed lands by the alleged purchasers is that there is nothing on record to show that they paid land revenue to these lands at any time. If the sale of the lands was true, definitely they would have paid the land revenue to these lands. The mutation of these lands in the names of these purchasers is not material as it has been effected only in the year 1974, that is subsequent to the issuance of Certificate u/s 50-B of the Act.

On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in this case and the records, I do not find any irregularity or illegality committed by the Joint Collector in passing the impugned order. As earlier stated, the reasoning and the findings given by the Joint Collector are based on the records. Hence, I do not find any reason to set aside the impugned order of the learned Joint Collector as it is just, proper and correct in law. The first question decided accordingly.

As regards the 2nd question, the learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently, contended that the suo motu revisional power has to be exercised by the Collector within a reasonable lime in the absence of any period of limitation for exercise of that power under the Section and the concept of reasonable time has to be imported into the said provision and that the exercise of such power after a lapse of more than 18 years is highly arbitrary. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Mohan Reddy, Advocate who was requested to assist the Court contended that in the absence of any lime limit prescribed in the section, the Court cannot import that such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. They further contended that Sudershan Reddy had played fraud and obtained the certificate u/s 50-B of the Act Benami in the names of his close relatives with a view to circumvent the provisions of Land Ceiling Act and that to implement the public policy of equitable distribution of the lands by effectively enforcing the provisions of Land Ceiling Act, it is necessary to check the misuse of Section 50-B of the Act and there cannot be limitation for exercising that power in case of fraud. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Cooli Sangham Rep. By its Genera! Secretary v. K.Suresh Reddy and others, in Writ Appeal No. 929/93 and Batch, dated 16-1-1995 (1996 (2) ALD 945 (DB) wherein it is held that exercise of suo motu revisional power by the Joint Collector under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act after lapse of 14 to 15 years is ipso facto unreasonable and prima facie arbitrary." This decision of the Division Bench of this Court was directly under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act. Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of this decision, the action of the Joint Collector should be declared as arbitrary. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Rattanlal, , for the proposition of law that there cannot be any limitation for exercising revisional power in case of fraud and that limitation would start running only from the date of discovery of fraud. The facts in the decision decided by the Division Bench of this Court (stated supra) are identified to the facts in the case on hand. In the case, sale deed was executed on plain paper with respect to an extent of 10 acres. The parties to the sale deed filed an application before, the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam on 24-3-72 for issuing Validation Certificate u/s 50-B of the Act The Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam issued the said Certificate on 21-12-1974. Thereafter the Joint Collector exercising power u/s 50-B(4) of the Act, set aside that certificate by his order dated 11-9-1989. The validity of that order was challenged before this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court, as reported in 1993 (2) APLJ 82 (HC) set aside that order of the Joint Collector by observing that the exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 14 years is nothing short of arbitrary exercise of power. As against that order, an appeal was preferred to the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench by its judgments dated 16-1-1995(1996(2) ALD 945 (supra) upheld the decision of the single Judge. As seen from the judgment of (he single Judge (1993 (2) APLJ 82 (HC) (supra) in that case, the Joint Collector recorded a finding of fact that the possession of the land in question was given in 1965, but, however held that as the possession of the land was not transferred to the vendee on or before 21-12-1961, the Validation Certificate is illegal. That finding of the Joint Collector was held to be incorrect for the reason that the transaction of sale which was validated, was entered into in 1965 and pursuant to it, possession was also given in 1965 and application for validation was made within the extended time and therefore, single Judge held that Validation Certificate cannot be held to be bad in law. But, in the case on hand, the Joint Collector held that the transaction of sale which was validated had never taken place. The possession of the lands in question was not given to the vendees and the entries in revenue records were manipulated fraudulently with a view to circumvent the provisions of Land Ceiling Act. Fraud played by B.Surdershan Reddy with the connivance of Revenue officials is apparent from the records. Therefore, the facts in this case are somewhat different. Further, the Division Bench did not lay down specifically that the principles applies even in a case where the order which is being revised was obtained by fraud. Therefore, that decision has no application to the facts in this case.

Now, I refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1993 SC 1933 (supra) relied on by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. In that case, the declarant under Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (27 of 1961), had suppressed the existence of his other lands liable to be shown in the returns filed by him. The Additional Commissioner discovered from records, suppression of the existence of such lands, he found mutations of those lands in the names of several persons and they were not genuine and valid. Hence, exercising suo motu revisional powers as provided under that Act, remitted the matter to the Primary Authority to consider the case in the light of his finding whether the land is includable in the holding of the declarant. The High Court of Bombay when the matter came up in revision against the said order of the Additional Commissioner, quashed the order of the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner or the State Government has no jurisdiction to determine the ceiling area when once an order has been passed on the appeal filed by the declarant. When the matter came up before the Supreme Court, their lordships of the Supreme Court held thus:

"The suppression of material facts namely, existence of the undeclared agricultural lands had come to the knowledge of the authorities after a long lapse of time. Should it be that limitation of 3 years would be a bar to exercise suo motu power or an order passed u/s 17 or 21 bar to re-open the case. Obviously, the answers are no. The limitation would start running only from the date of discovery of fraud or suppression of material or relevant facts or omission thereof and the order u/s 17 is not a bar to exercise revisional power".

By such observation, the Supreme Court implies that revisional power can be exercised even after the expiry of the period of limitation and that limitation would start running only from the date of discovery of fraud. There is also a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Ramalingam v. Lachmaiah, 1963 (II) 393. In that case, Division Bench examined the point regarding the reasonable time within which the Joint Collector should exercise suo motu revisionsl power u/s 166-B of A.P. (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Act in the absence of limitation of lime prescribed by that Section. The Division Bench held that the powers of revision u/s 166-B of "the Act conferred on the Government are very wide and when the Government feel that the order sought to be revised is irregular, illegal or improper, they can pass any suitable order in that behalf First of all, before they could exercise their jurisdiction, it should be shown that the order is irregular, illegal and improper". The ratio of these decisions is applicable to the facts in this case.

Where no innocent third party interests have crept in and where the nature of fraud or mis-representation is so glaring and patent crying out for judicial correction and where the vendor and vendees are parties to the fraud played on the State, it becomes the duty of the revisional authority to take action immediately the fraud is detected and discovered. It is for that reason, the statute gave power to the Joint Collector without reference to any time limit. This Court should not support the contention which will have the effect of circumventing the provisions of Land Ceilings Act and the party to the fraud benefited by his fraudulent act. The theory of arbitrary cancellation and improper exercise of jurisdiction, are all, in my opinion, inapplicable to a case of this nature. Accordingly, I decide the 2nd question also in favour of the respondents.

In the result, I do not find any merits in these revision-petitions. Accordingly both the revision petitions are dismissed. But, in the circumstances, no costs.

Before parting with this order, I place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, the advocate to this Court at my instance.