Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, concerning the grant of a ryotwari patta. The Settlement Officer had granted ryotwari patta to the respondent on February 7, 1983 under Section 11(a) of the Act. Subsequently, the Director of Settlement, exercising suo motu power under Section 5(2) of the Act, passed an order on October 25, 1990 setting aside the Settlement Officer's order. Aggrieved by the Director's order, the respondent challenged it before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A learned single judge set aside the Director's order, holding that the exercise of power after a long lapse of time was arbitrary and that no material was produced to show the circumstances under which the power came to be exercised. The Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated July 28, 1993 in Writ Appeal No. 752 of 1992, affirmed the single judge's decision. The State of Andhra Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the suo motu revisional power under Section 5(2) could be exercised after a prolonged delay and whether the High Court was correct in interfering. The Supreme Court observed that Section 5(2) empowers the Director to cancel or revise any orders, acts, or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. It reiterated the settled law that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised within reasonable time, and what constitutes reasonable time depends on the facts of each case. In the present case, the Court found that the Settlement Officer's order was issued contrary to the provisions of the Act, and this fact was not known until an inquiry was held. The contravention of Section 11(a) came to light only after the inquiry. Furthermore, when the record was called for, it was discovered that the record had been destroyed, and the Court inferred that the persons behind the scheme had managed to see that the records were destroyed. Under these circumstances, the Director was constrained to exercise the suo motu power. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was clearly in error in interfering with the Director's order. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the orders of the single judge and the Division Bench were set aside, and the Director of Settlement's order dated October 25, 1990 was restored. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Suo Motu Revision - Reasonable Time and Delay Justified by Concealed Contravention - Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Sections 5(2) and 11(a) - The Director of Settlement suo motu revised a Settlement Officer's order granting ryotwari patta after a long lapse of time. The High Court held that exercise of power after long delay was arbitrary and set aside the Director's order, but the Supreme Court held that the power of suo motu revision must be exercised within reasonable time, which depends on facts of each case. Since the Settlement Officer's order was contrary to Section 11(a) and the contravention came to light only after inquiry, and records were destroyed to conceal the scheme, the delay was justified. Held that the High Court erred in interfering and the Director's order was restored. (Paras 1-2) B) Evidence Law - Destruction of Records - Inference of Fraudulent Scheme - The court observed that when the record was called for, it came to light that the record was destroyed, and it was obvious that the persons behind the scheme had managed to see that the records were destroyed. This destruction supported the Director's suo motu action and indicated concealment of the contravention. Held that such conduct cannot defeat the exercise of statutory power under Section 5(2). (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Director of Settlement's suo motu revision under Section 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 after a long lapse of time was valid and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside that order.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Orders of single judge and Division Bench set aside. Director of Settlement's order dated October 25, 1990 restored. No costs.
Law Points
- Power of suo motu revision must be exercised within reasonable time
- reasonableness depends on facts of each case
- delay justified when contravention of Section 11(a) not known until inquiry
- destruction of records by beneficiaries cannot defeat statutory power
- Section 5(2) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act
- 1948 empowers Director to cancel or revise Settlement Officer's orders except those appealable to Tribunal
