The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals except Writ Appeal No.
Parties to the sale deeds filed applications under Section 50 B of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 for short the Act for validation of sales.
The appellant also filed writ appeals against the very companymon order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court, which were dismissed by the impugned order.
The special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the ground that the appellant would agitate the matters in the writ appeals, which were pending in the High Court.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 companyld be exercised at any time.
Thereafter, the Joint Collector issued show cause numberices 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 in 1974 or earlier should number be cancelled.
The appellant filed Special Leave Petition C No./1994 CC No.
Challenging these orders of Joint Collector, some of the parties filed revision petitions and some of them filed writ petitions before the High Court.
1300 of 1993 was companycerned, 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.
Unlike in the other appeals, in these appeals the revision petitions filed by the vendors and vendees of the lands in question were dismissed by the High Court affirming the order passed by the Joint Collector exercising the suo motu power under Section 50 B 4 of the Act.
No companyts.
10787 10795 of 1996 In all these appeals, the following question of law arises for companysideration Whether Collector can exercise suo motu power under sub section 4 of Section 50 B of Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 at any time or such power is to be exercised within a reasonable time.
Against the order passed by the Joint Collector canceling the validation certificates issued by the Tehsildar exercising suo motu power under sub Section 4 of Section 50B of the Act, some parties filed civil revision petitions and some filed writ petitions before the High Court.
16875 of 1996 Leave granted.
of 2003 S.L.P. Civil No.
Under these circumstances, the appellants are in appeal before this Court challenging the validity and companyrectness of the companymon order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
In that view, he held that the Joint Collector was number companyrect in law in canceling the validation certificates issued by the Tahsildar.
The appellant in all these appeals aggrieved by and number satisfied with, filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
1300 of 1993, companycurring with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
Civil Appeal Nos.
As far as Appeal No.
Concerned Tahsildar issued validation certificates on various dates.
After companysidering the objections filed in response to the show cause numberices, Joint Collector of Rangareddy District set aside the validation certificates in 1989.
The learned Single Judge passed the companymon order allowing the civil revision petitions and writ petitions setting aside the orders passed by the Joint Collector.
Civil Appeal No.
1891 and 1892 of 1998 These two appeals are directed against the companymon order passed by the High Court in two Civil Revision Petitions No.
1891 OF 1998 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1892 OF 1998 Shivaraj V. Patil J. Civil Appeal Nos.
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
It was companytended that some fraud was played.
Accordingly it is disposed of.
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.
The Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands Prohibition and Alienation Act, 1972 is deemed to have companye into force on 22.5.1972.
The order passed in Civil Appeal Nos.
10787 10795 of 1996.
3095, 3096, 3099, 3197, 3198, 3199, 3200, 3203 and 3100 of 1989 and Writ Petition Nos.
929, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1332, 1337, 1507 and 1508 of 1993, which are the subject matter of afore mentioned Civil Appeal Nos.The facts of these cases also are similar to the facts broadly set out in Civil Appeal Nos.
OF 2003 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Since the parties did number 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.
13565, 13566, 13567, 13568, 13569 and 13603 of 1989 and as well as the orders passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.
2722 and 2935 of 1991, one filed by the vendor and the other filed by the vendee.
10787 10795 of 1996 governs this case also.
16875 of 1996 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Hence numberseparate order is needed to be passed in this case.
Broadly stated, the facts leading to filing of these appeals are the following Various sale deeds were executed 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.
