Karnataka High Court
Smt Shakuntalamma W/O Narappa Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.28552/2010
c/w
W.P.No.28556/2010,
W.P.No.39231/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN W.P.No.28552/2010:
BETWEEN
SMT.SHAKUNTALAMMA
W/O NARAPPA REDDY
AGED 60 YEARS,
R/A BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
BIDRAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR
Sri PRAKASH T.HEBBAR, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
5TH FLOOR, MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DIST.
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM.
2
4. SRI. N DEVARAJU S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS,
KANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER
5. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O CHIKKAMMA
AGED 43 YEARS,
6. SRI. VENKATESH S/O MUNINANJAPPA
AGED 28 YEARS,
7. SRI. MAHESH S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 19 YEARS,
8. SRI. ASHWATAPPA S/O LATE DONYAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS,
9. SRI. Y.N.MANJUNATH S/O NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
10. SRI.PATALAPPA S/O KEMPANNA
AGED 31 YEARS,
11. SRI.MUNIRAJAPPA S/O DODDA MUNITAYAPPA
AGED 46 YEARS,
12. SHRI ERRANNA S/O LATE DODDAMUNITHAYAPPA,
MAJOR,
SL.NO.4 TO 12 ARE R/A YERAPPANA HALLI VILLAGE,
DODDA GUBBI POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST.
13. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri D.R.RAJASHEKHARAPPA, SPL.GOVT. ADV. FOR R1-R3;
Smt.R.SHAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R11; R12-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DT.2.9.2010, PASSED BY THE R2- SPECIAL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.RRT(2)(E) CR.66/08-09 AS
PER ANN-A AND ETC.
3
IN W.P.No.28556/2010
BETWEEN
SMT.KAMALAMMA
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR.COUNSEL FOR
Sri PRAKASH T.HEBBAR, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
5TH FLOOR, MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DIST.
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM.
4. SRI. N.DEVARAJU S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED 33 YEARS,
KANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER
5. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O CHIKKAMMA
AGED 43 YEARS,
6. SRI. VENKATESH S/O MUNINANJAPPA
AGED 28 YEARS,
7. SRI. MAHESH S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 19 YEARS,
8. SRI. ASHWATAPPA S/O LATE DONYAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS,
9. SRI. Y.N.MANJUNATH S/O NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
4
10. SRI.PATALAPPA S/O KEMPANNA
AGED 31 YEARS,
11. SRI.MUNIRAJAPPA S/O DODDA MUNITAYAPPA
AGED 46 YEARS,
SL.NO.4 TO 11 ARE R/A YERAPPANA HALLI VILLAGE,
DODDA GUBBI POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST.
12. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST. ... RESPONDENTS
(AMENDED V/C/O DT.01.07.2014)
(By Sri D.R.RAJASHEKHARAPPA, SPL.GOVT. ADV. FOR R1-R3 &
R12; Smt.R.SHAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DT.2.9.10, PASSED BY THE R2, SPECIAL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.RRT(2) (E) CR.67/08-09 AS
PER ANN-A AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.39231/2012
BETWEEN
SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY,
YARAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDHARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
5
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE
3. SRI. N. DEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
MEMBER, KANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
4. SRI.MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKAMMA,
5. SRI. ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE DODDA MUNITHAYAPPA,
6. SRI. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O MUNINANJAPPA,
7. SRI.MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
8. SRI. ASWATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE DONYAPPA
9. SRI Y.N. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANA
10. SRI. PATALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O KEMPANNA
11. SRI.MUNIRAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O DODDA MUNITHAYAPPA,
SL.NO.4 TO 11 ARE R/O
R/AT YERRAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAGUBBI POST,
BIDHARAHALLI HOBLI,
6
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
12. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST. ... RESPONDENTS
(AMENDED V/C/O DT.01.07.2014)
(By Smt.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R12;
Smt.R.SHAMA, ADV. FOR R3-R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 &
R2 TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER, IN RTC
SY.NO.21/48 MEASURING 4-00 ACRES, SITUATED AT
YERRAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE
EAST TQ. BANGALORE RURAL DIST. BY WAY OF WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. These three writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, on 02.09.2010, thereby directing cancellation of entries made in the revenue records in the name of petitioners/grantees in respect of the granted land comprised in Sy. No.21 measuring 4 acres each situated at Yarappanahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The Special Deputy Commissioner has further directed to take action to enter the name of Government in 7 the revenue records in respect of the said land. Petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the lands so that possession of the lands could be taken over to the Government.
2. Though three separate orders have been passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in No.RRT(2)(E)CR 66, 67 & 68/2008-09, facts leading to the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and the grounds on which the Special Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the grants were spurious and fraudulent are similar. Therefore, these matters are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
3. By official memorandum dated 30.03.1970, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, based on the report submitted by the local officer regarding appropriation of 14 acres of land out of Sy. No.21 of Yarrappanahalli village, which was allegedly in unauthorized cultivation, was sanctioned for being granted in favour of four persons by name Nareppa S/o 8 Thimmareddy; Kamalamma W/o Ramakrishnappa (petitioner in W.P.No.28556/2010); Shakunthalamma W/o Nareppa (petitioner in W.P.No.28552/2010); and Munivenkatappa S/o Munishamappa (petitioner in W.P.No.39231/2012). In the reference column at Sl. No.1 of this official memorandum at Annexure-B, letter dated 24.02.1970 of the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division, forwarding the application of Nareppa S/o Thimmareddy and three others has been referred to, apart from referring to the report of the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division, recommending for grant of 14 acres of land (Sl. No.2 in the reference).
4. Based on Annexure-B - official memorandum, saguvali chit was issued in respect of 4 acres of land in Sy. No.21 in favour of each of the three petitioners. Petitioners have produced the grant certificate issued in Form-I and extract of the saguvali chit issue register. Pursuant to the grant of land made in favour of petitioners, entries have bee effected in the revenue records by virtue of mutation 9 bearing Nos.9/71-72 (Shakunthalamma W/o Nareppa); 5/71-72 (Kamalamma W/o Ramakrishnappa); and 8/71- 72 (Munivenkatappa S/o Munishamappa). Thereafter, names of petitioners have been recorded in the RTC with effect from the year 1974-75 onwards. Petitioners have produced revenue records (RTC extracts) to show that their names have been recorded in Column Nos.9 & 12 as khathedar and anubhavdhar, respectively. It is also seen from Column No.10 of the revenue records that a specific mention has been made to the respective mutation entry numbers, based on which the entries in the RTC were effected. These entries continued in the names of the petitioners till 2000.
5. Thereafter, on introduction of computerized entries, names of petitioners were not reflected in the revenue records. Hence, they made representations in this regard to restore their names in the revenue records. After making necessary verification, the Revenue Inspector and the Deputy Tahsildar, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, recommended for restoring the entries in the names 10 of petitioners. Thereafter, Assistant Commissioner, issued a communication dated 20.11.2007, to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, to restore the names of petitioners and carry out the entries in the computerized RTC. This communication is produced at Annexure-L in W.P.Nos.28552/2010 and 28556/2010. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner, mutation entry was effected by the Tahsildar and names of petitioners were restored in the computerized RTCs pertaining to the land in question. It is urged by petitioners that indeed survey had been conducted to demarcate the portions of the lands granted to each of the petitioners from out of Sy. No.21. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the survey sketch produced at Annexure-K.
6. On 31.12.2009, a notice was issued to the petitioners by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, calling upon them to appear before him on 16.04.2009 by initiating suo motu proceedings in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka 11 Land Revenue Act, 1964. It was alleged against petitioners that without valid grant in their favour, they had obtained entries in the revenue records by producing created documents. Petitioners were called upon to show cause why the lands should not be taken over to the Government. They were asked to produce certain documents.
7. Petitioners appeared, filed their objections and produced several documents. The Special Deputy Commissioner after examining the documents has held that during the years 1969-70 & 1970-71, there was no post of Special Deputy Commissiont, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru; that on a plain look at the official memorandum - Annexure-B produced before him in support of the grant made disclosed that something had been scribbled by some person and that the official memorandum contained signature of one B.G.Kuttappa, Deputy Commissioner. In fact, he was Headquarters Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner; added to that, it was not at all his signature and was a forged signature. 12 The Deputy Commissioner further comes to the conclusion that the official memorandum was not in the usual official language and it was not known as to whose signature it contained. The Deputy Commissioner further comes to the conclusion that even the letter dated 24.02.1970 of the Divisional Commissioner referred to in the official memorandum was not that of the Divisional Commissioner, but was that of Gazetted Assistant to the Divisional Commissioner and that the signature was also on the face of it a forged signature. Indeed, these are observations made by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the course of his order. The Deputy Commissioner further finds that according to the age recorded in the election identity card of the year 2010, the age of Shakunthalamma was shown as 48 years and the age of Kamalamma was shown as 46 years and if calculated, their age as on the date of issuance of saguvali chit might be between 8 to 10 years and hence, they were not entitled for grant of land at that age.
13
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Jayakumar S. Patil strongly contends that the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to examine the validity of grant in exercise of the power and jurisdiction under Section 136(3) after a lapse of nearly 40 years from the date of grant. It is his next contention that petitioners were not notified of the alleged fraudulent acts with any details so as to enable them to contest the proceedings nor any evidence was led in support of the allegation of fraud and fabrication of the documents, and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not have returned any finding regarding the so-called fraudulent grant. He takes the court through the documents produced along with the writ petition to contend that at no point of time during the past nearly 40 years, the revenue authorities had taken any exception to the grant made in favour of petitioners and the entries effected in the revenue records by virtue of mutation proceedings while certifying the mutations. He, therefore, submits that such an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner which affected the 14 valuable rights of petitioners over immovable property, could not be sustained in law. He has also contended that though there is no time limit prescribed for exercising revisional powers as held by the Assistant Commissioner, such power has to be exercised within a reasonable period and such reasonable period cannot extend to 40 years. In support of the above contentions, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following judgments.
(i) JT. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DIST. &
ANOTHER VS D.NARSING RAO & OTHERS - AIR
2015 SC 1021;
(ii) K.V.MOHAMMED ZAKIR VS REGIONAL SPORTS CENTRE - (2009)9 SCC 357.
He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.57847/2016 disposed of on 16.03.2017 and W.P.No.25982/2017 disposed of on 25.07.2017.
9. Mr. D.R.Rajashekharappa, learned Counsel appearing for the State has contended that this is a case where the Deputy Commissioner has unearthed the fraud committed in creating spurious documents of grant and 15 false entries in the revenue records, therefore, none of the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel have any application to the facts of the present case. He further submits that it is not necessary for the State to conduct any investigation or initiate any suit or other proceeding to take action regarding forfeiture of the land wherever records were created by committing fraud. He also points out that exercise of the suo motu power belatedly would not come in the way of taking action in such matters where fraud was unearthed. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of W.S.INSULATORS OF INDIA LIMITED VS THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE & OTHERS - (2009) 4 KLJ 310 and also the judgment in the case of S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS. VS JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS & OTHERS - AIR 1994 SC 853.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 11 in W.P.Nos.28552/2010 & 28556/2010 and for respondents 3 to 11 in W.P.No.39231/2012, has placed reliance on the judgment in W.P.Nos.7071/2012 & 16 7218/2012 disposed of on 31.01.2013 to contend that where it is found that there was no valid grant, question of cancellation of grant would not arise, and therefore, what the Deputy Commissioner had done was cancellation of entries made in the RTC, and therefore, though power was exercised belatedly, the same would not affect the legality and correctness of the power exercised. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of K.N.MANJUNATH VS R.P.LAXMAN & OTHERS - ILR 2001 KAR 5587.
11. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State in W.P.No.39231/2012 has supported the contentions urged by Mr. D.R.Rajashekharappa.
12. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, indisputable facts that emerge are, that Deputy Commissioner has initiated proceedings in exercise of his power under Section 136(3) based on the complaint made by some of the villagers. The proceedings are initiated during the year 2009 to annul entries made in respect of Sy. Nos.21/P46, 21/P47 & 21/P48 of Yarappanahalli 17 village. These entries were effected by virtue of the mutation entries duly certified by case bearing Nos.9/71- 72, 5/71/72 & 8/71-72. It is, therefore, evident that the proceedings have been initiated after a lapse of nearly 40 years from the date of grant of land and after the certified mutation entries were effected.
13. In the notice issued on 31.03.2009, the Deputy Commissioner has notified the petitioners that prima face he had found that there was no valid grant in respect of the lands in favour of petitioners and that records had been created in that regard, therefore, petitioners should appear to show cause why the land should not be forfeited to the Government. Petitioners were called upon to produce certain documents. It is thus clear that the notice issued required petitioners to sustain the grant made in their favour way back in the year 1970. Except alleging that the grant had been got created as prima facie noticed by him, no details of alleged fraud/fabrication and creation of documents were alleged against petitioners. 18
14. Petitioners appeared and contested the case by producing documents in their possession. No evidence was recorded, no investigation has been ordered into the alleged fabrication and creation of documents or the fraud committed. The Deputy Commissioner has perused grant certificate, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District on 30.03.1970 and has come to the conclusion that the said order was not passed by the Deputy Commissioner, but was passed by one B.G.Kuttappa who was working as Headquarters Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner further records a finding that even the signature did not appear to be that of Headquarters Assistant and the said signature was a forged one. Similarly, with regard to the letter addressed from the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division, in No.B.DIS LND(1)SR.318/69-70 dated 24.02.1970, the Deputy Commissioner has observed as under:
"Now, on looking into the alleged letter No.B.Dis.LND(1) SR.318/69-70 dated 24.2.70 of the Divisional Commissioner, 19 Bangalore District, Bangalore, it is having the signature of Shri 'SYED ABDUL KHADER' (as for Divisional "Commissioner, Bangalore Division) who was the Gazetted Assistant to the Divisional Commissioner. The said signature, on the very face of it, is a clear FORGED SIGNATURE."
15. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, findings of this nature holding that the signature was not a genuine signature and was a forged one could not be recorded in a casual manner without following the procedure prescribed for recording evidence. If the said finding was likely to affect the interest of any person, he should have been given an opportunity to rebut such allegations of forgery. Different modes and methods are available in law to establish that a particular document is created or signature found therein is forged including by taking recourse to scientific evidence of the handwriting expert.
16. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner has by a mere look at the documents, comes to such a conclusion 20 that signatures found on the documents were forged ones. The Deputy Commissioner could not have ignored the fact that he was examining the genuineness of the documents based on which the petitioners had asserted their rights for a period of 40 years. It is precisely for this reason, the Deputy Commissioner was required to bring to bare to all seriousness in the matter and if he was of the impression that there was an attempt made by the beneficiaries to illegally knock off Government land, investigation into the matter ought to have been undertaken so as to find out who colluded with the petitioners in case he were to come to a prima facie conclusion that there was room to doubt the correction of such documents. Therefore, I am of the view that attempt made by the Deputy Commissioner after such long lapse of time to come to such a conclusion cannot be sustained in law.
17. Learned Counsel for petitioners is right and justified in placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jt. Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist. case referred to supra, to contend that power of revision under Section 21 136(3) cannot be exercised at any time as the authorities could deem fit merely because no period of limitation had been prescribed in the provision to exercise the same. It is pertinent to refer to observations made in paragraphs 11, 12, 24 & 25 of the said judgment, which are extracted hereunder:
"11. No time limit is prescribed in the above Regulation for the exercise of suo motu power but the question is as to whether the suo motu power could be exercised after a period of 50 years. The Government as early as in the year 1991 passed order reserving 477 acres of land in Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally village for house-sites to the Government employees. In other words the Government had every occasion to verify the revenue entries pertaining to the said lands while passing the Government Order dated 24.9.1991 but no exception was taken to the entries found. Further the respondents herein filed Writ Petition No.21719 of 1997 challenging the Government order dated 24.9.1991 and even at that point of time no action was initiated pertaining to the entries in the said survey numbers. Thereafter, the 22 purchasers of land from respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a civil suit in O.S.No.12 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for a declaration that they were lawful owners and possessors of certain plots of land in survey No.36, and after contest, the suit was decreed and said decree is allowed to become final. By the impugned Notice dated 31.12.2004 the suo motu revision power under Regulation 166B referred above is sought to be exercised after five decades and if it is allowed to do so it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties over immovable properties.
12. In the light of what is stated above, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in affirming the view of the learned single Judge of the High Court that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law.
xxxx 23
24. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.
25. In the case at hand, while the entry sought to be corrected is described as 24 fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice impugned before the High Court as to when was the alleged fraud discovered by the State. A specific statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the respondents. The attempt of the appellant-State to demonstrate that the notice was issued within a reasonable period of the discovery of the alleged fraud is, therefore, futile. At any rate, when the Government allowed the land in question for housing sites to be given to Government employees in the year 1991, it must be presumed to have known about the record and the revenue entries concerning the parcel of land made in the ordinary course of official business. In as much as, the notice was issued as late as on 31st December 2004 it was delayed by nearly 13 years. No explanation has been offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle the notice seeking to reverse the entries made half a century ago, was clearly beyond reasonable time and was rightly quashed."25
18. Thus, what emerges from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment is, that delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been frowned upon and even where no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of such revisional powers, rule of law must run closely with the rule of life and the authorities should not venture upon revising the orders even in cases where the orders to be revised are stated to be fraudulently obtained because exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of discovery of fraud. The Apex Court has further pointed out that simply describing the act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity for otherwise exercise of revisional power would itself tantamount to a fraud upon the statue that vests such power in an authority. The Apex Court, in the facts of the said case, wherein also entries were sought to be corrected describing them as fraudulent one, has observed that, there was nothing in the notice impugned before the High Court "as to when the alleged fraud was discovered by the State". It has been specifically laid down in the said 26 judgment that a specific statement with regard to the alleged fraud and when it was discovered was essential because it was a jurisdictional fact which ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the respondents.
19. As already noticed above, even in the facts of the present case, though the notice alleges that entries were got effected based on created documents of grant, no details regarding alleged fraud and no details as to when the authorities learnt about the same have been stated. The said facts being jurisdictional facts ought to have been stated in the notice and the petitioners ought to have been provided with clear details of the so-called allegations of fraud and the date when the same was discovered by the authorities.
20. Contention of the learned Counsel for respondents is, that at any time Deputy Commissioner could exercise his revisional jurisdiction and declare that grant made was a forged or created one, and therefore, the land had to be forfeited to the Government. Such a proposition, if 27 accepted, would result in an anomalous, arbitrary and hazardous consequences. On the other hand, as held by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision and in catena of decisions, finality has to be given to the orders passed by the revenue authorities and if the State were to discover materials which showed that fraud had been played and documents had been created by fabricating the same and forging the signatures, then, in all promptitude and seriousness, investigation ought to be ordered, guilty have to be brought to book and proceedings have to be initiated before the courts of law for annulling the transactions and establishing the right of the State over the same. If such proceedings are initiated, there is scope for leading evidence. The beneficiaries will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, produce evidence in support of their case and thereafter, there will be a reasoned verdict of the court after analyzing the evidence on record by framing specific issue regarding the alleged fraud committed. The affected parties will have right to assail such findings before the appellate forum and 28 the appellate court will have ample opportunity to have a second look at the entire materials placed on record. All this procedure would be short-circuited and negated if the revisional powers are exercised after decades to record findings regarding fraud committed, particularly when such findings are recorded in a casual manner as has been done in the instant case.
21. In the writ jurisdiction, this Court will not be in a position to appreciate the materials on record to either agree with the order passed or otherwise. Therefore, it has to be made clear that the revisional authority - Deputy Commissioner was not justified in recording such findings and in this writ proceedings, this Court also will not be in a position to record any such finding and make any observation one way or the other with regard to the allegations of fraud and the so-called fraudulent grant or fraudulent entries allegedly got created by the petitioners. Suffice to observe, that these are matters which have to be examined before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. Hence, I refrain from expressing any opinion with 29 regard to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made.
22. Although reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for respondents on the judgment in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu's case referred to supra, to contend that fraud avoids all judicial acts and that withholding of relevant documents by which party obtained decree from the court of law could be vitiated by fraud, the said proposition of law has no application to the facts of the present case. This is not a case where petitioners have obtained any decree by playing fraud. Similarly, order passed by this Court in W.S.Insulators's case referred to supra, cannot be pressed into service, particularly in the wake of the law laid down by the Apex Court recently in the judgment in Jt. Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist. case. Similarly, the judgments on which learned Counsel Smt. R.Shama has placed reliance, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, keeping in mind, the judgment of the Apex Court.
30
23. There cannot be any doubt that the Deputy Commissioner can exercise suo motu powers of revision and cancel the entries made in the RTC, but the question that has arisen in the present case is, whether he can do so after a lapse of 40 years and that too based on the allegations of fraud without an opportunity to the parties to establish the same by leading evidence in accordance with law. The revisional jurisdiction envisages summary proceedings. As already pointed out, allegations of fraud have to be established by following the rules of evidence and by providing opportunity to the respective parties.
24. Hence, for all the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that observations made by this Court in this order will not come in the way of the authorities establishing their claim and assertions in accordance with law before the competent court.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK