Skip to main content

Limitation to apply even where there is no limitation stated, says Supreme Court

Government has to exercise its powers to take corrective course within a reasonable period to change an order that has been secured by a beneficiary in a fraudulent manner, the Supreme Court has ruled.

It held as wrong the Andhra Pradesh Government order exercising its 'revision power' after nearly five decades to issue show cause notice to villagers as to why their entries in land records should not be cancelled and corrected as the transactions there were fraudulent.

The apex court held "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."

A bench comprising Justices TS Thakur and C Nagappan dismissed the appeal filed by the Joint Collector of Ranga Reddy district against the order of the High Court saying that the revisional powers vested under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act cannot be exercised 50 years after the making of the alleged fraudulent entries.

"The suo motu revision exercise undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation is arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law," it said.

Justice Nagappan, who wrote the judgement for the Bench, noted that if the impugned notice of December 31, 2004, invoking the suo motu revision power is allowed after five decades, "it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties over immovable properties." Observing that the rule of law "must run closely with the rule of life", the bench said "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 allowed only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period." Concurring with Justice Nagappan's findings,

Justice Thakur separately added few lines in the judgement, saying "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."

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-government-must-alter-fraudulent-records-in-reasonable-time-says-supreme-court-2052486

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more