Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
OF 2015
Appellants
..
Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 327
OF 2015
The Chairman,
Joint Action Committee of Employees
Teachers and Workers A.P.
..
-vsD. Narsing Rao & Ors. etc. etc
Respondents
Appellant
..
JUDGMENT
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1.
Leave granted.
Page1
2.
judgment
3.
registered sale
Page2
Page3
4.
Page4
to
the
Government
and
the
said
Patwari
were
detected
by
the
Revenue
5.
Page5
and
accordingly
allowed
the
writ
both
the
writ
appeals
by
common
6.
Page6
in Survey Nos. 36
and 37 based on
the Khasra
Page7
Page8
consideration.
In the decision in State of Maharashtra and
another vs. Rattanlal (1993) 3 SCC 326 this Court
while dealing with revisional power under Section 45
of
Maharashtra
Agricultural
Land
(Ceiling
and
Page9
learned
counsels
appearing
for
the
of
the
predecessors
in
title
of
the
been
regularly
paying
land
revenue
of
the
subject
property
has
been
Page10
the
decision
in
Mohamad
Kavi
Page11
the
decision
in
Santoshkumar
Page12
Page13
the
decision
in
Ibrahimpatnam
Taluk
Page14
Page15
9.
Page16
10.
The
of
A.P.
(Telangana
Area)
Land
Revenue
Subject
to
the
provisions
of
the
Regulation,
1358
F,
the
Page17
subordinate
department
and
order
or
decision
passed
or
the
that
no
order
or
decision
or
annulled
unless
the
for
subordinate
or
decision
passed
or
the
or,
proceedings
should
be
Page18
(3)
In other words
the
Thereafter,
19
Page19
on
12.
Page20
J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
January 13, 2015.
21
Page21
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 325-326
OF 2015
Appellants
Versus
...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 327 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.5031 of 2011)
The Chairman,
Joint Action Committee of Employees
Teachers and Workers A.P.
Appellant
Versus
D. Narsing Rao & Ors. etc. etc.
...Respondents
22
Page22
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1.
2.
and the writ appeals before the High Court out of which arise
the present appeals have been set out at length by my
esteemed Brother in the order proposed by him. Narration of
the factual matrix over again would, therefore, serve no
useful purpose. Suffice it to say that the dispute in these
proceedings is confined to an extent of 44 acres of land
situate in Survey No.36 and 46 acres of land in Survey No.37
23
Page23
petitioners before the High Court) was that the said extent of
land was granted by the Jagirdar concerned on Patta to
persons in actual cultivating possession. The Patta was,
according
to
the
respondents,
recongnised
by
the
whereunder
the
writ-petitioners
(respondents
Page24
and
possession
of
the
writ-petitioners
had
Page25
4.
Patil and
Anr. v. Balasaheb
Tukaram
5.
Page26
the
exercise
of
the
same
intervening
delay
such power
Page27
some of the decisions only to bring home the point that the
absence of a stipulated period of limitation makes little or no
difference in so far as the exercise of the power is concerned
which ought to be permissible only when the power is
invoked within a reasonable period.
6.
7.
Page28
8.
orders
and
proceedings
cannot
be
exercised
29
Page29
9.
Singh and Ors. (2004) 10 SCC this Court held that in the
absence of any special circumstances a delay of 15 years in
suo motu exercise of revisional power was impermissible as
the delay was unduly long and unexplained. This Court
observed:
Page30
The rule which says that the Court may not enquire
into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a
rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise
of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own
facts. It will all depend on what the breach of the
fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and
how delay arose. The principle on which the relief to
the party on the grounds of laches or delay is denied
is that the rights which have accrued to others by
reason of the delay in filing the petition should not
be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a
reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to
determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner
should come to the writ court before a parallel right
is created and that the lapse of time is not
attributable to any laches or negligence. The test is
not as to physical running of time. Where the
circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the
illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on
the sole ground of laches. The decision in Tilokchand
case relied on is distinguishable on the facts of the
present case. The levy if based on the net profits of
the railway undertaking was beyond the authority
and the illegal nature of the same has been
questioned though belatedly in the pending
31
Page31
period
of
the
discovery
of
fraud.
Simply
32
Page32
The
attempt
of
the
appellant-State
to
Page33
34
Page34
....J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
New Delhi
January 13, 2015
35
Page35