Subject land was designated as a Panchayat Ghar however, later it was re-assigned for residential use and allotments were made to allottees including appellants (writ petitioners in High Court)u/s.122-C, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land ReformsAct. Proceedings for cancellation of the allotments were initiated based on the report of the Lekhpal which was undisputedly after13 years from the date of allotment. Since, there is no limitation fixed for initiation of the proceedings under the aforesaid Act,whether such initiation of the proceedings can be at any length of time or at any point of time where no limitation is prescribed.Whether any fraud was committed by the writ petitioners or was attributed to them under the show cause notices.

Held: This Court had an occasion to consider similar issue namely
the exercise of suo moto power u/sub-section (4) of s.50-B of Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950
in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh
Reddy [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 698, wherein it was held that suo moto
power should be exercised within a reasonable period even in case of
fraud and within a reasonable time from the date of discovery of fraud
and it depends on facts and circumstances of each case – Further,
in sub-section (4) of s.50-B, AP Act, the expression “the collector
may, suo moto at any time;” is occurring while such expression is
conspicuously absent in sub-section (6) of s.122-(C) of UPZALR

Act – Furthermore, the report or the communication of the Lekhpal
forwarded to the Tehsildar does not even suggest or indicate any
fraud having occurred or alleged against writ petitioners – However,
the Tehsildar in the report submitted to the District Magistrate, on
the basis of certain presumed irregularities concluded that allotment
was irregular and approval of allotment was on the basis of forged
signature of Sub-District Magistrate – Although, the basis of such
conclusion namely signature of the Sub-District Magistrate having
been forged was not specified – No allegation of whatsoever nature
was attributed to the allottees of they having forged the signature/s
– In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fraud was
attributed to the writ petitioners in show cause notices – Impugned
order of the High Court; the order passed by the Additional Collector
which held that proceedings for cancellation could be started at any
time as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner,
(Administration) Moradabad Division are unsustainable and set
aside. [Paras 13, 15-17, 19]

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 287 : 2024 INSC 430