THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22269 OF 2001 Dated: 29.11.2011 Between : Veeramalla Venkateshwarlu and 2 others … Petitioners And The Joint Collector and 2 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22269 OF 2001 O R D E R: The petitioners herein claim to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.00 of land situated in survey No.451 of Gollaguda village, Nalgonda District. It is stated that the said land was assigned to the father of the petitioners and a patta certificate was granted in his favour on 21.06.1968 by the then Tahsildar, Nalgonda. After the death of their father, the petitioners have succeeded to the said land and their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued to them. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 17.05.2000 alleging that the land assigned to the petitioners’ father was not being used for agricultural purpose and accordingly, calling upon them to show cause as to why the assignment should not be cancelled. The petitioners submitted their explanation denying the allegation and bringing to the notice of the respondents that a bore well was dug and fencing was erected around the land in question and the land had been put to cultivation long back. While denying the allegation that they are taking steps for putting the land to non-agricultural purpose, it was explained that due to drought conditions dry cultivation was being carried on. However, the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 23.05.2000 ordered resumption of the land in question observing that the explanation offered was not convincing. Aggrieved by the said order, though the petitioners preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, the same was dismissed by order dated 07.07.2001. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the resumption ordered by the 3rd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 07.07.2001, is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, the resumption order was passed by the 3rd respondent in terms of the permission accorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda under Section 166 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short, ‘the Act’) to review the case. Aggrieved by the resumption ordered by the 3rd respondent, the petitioners preferred the appeal under Section 158 of the Act. The 1st respondent-appellate authority after conducting a spot inspection, found that stones were planted making the land in question into house site pattas and that real estate activity was going on in the surrounding area in survey No.451. It was also found that no water facility was available to facilitate agriculture and there were no traces of agriculture. Accordingly, which holding that the assignees had violated the conditions 2 and 3 of the assignment patta certificate, the 1st respondent upheld the order of resumption passed by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondents 2 and 3 have no authority to invoke power of review under Section 166 (b) of the Act. It is also contended that the suo motu power of review under Section 166 (b) of the Act ought not to have been exercised after a lapse of 32 years from the date of assignment. Admittedly, the land in question was assigned to the father of the petitioners during the year 1968 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958 according to which the assigned land should be brought under cultivation within three years. As noticed above the resumption was ordered on the ground that the petitioners failed to bring the land into cultivation within three years. Though it is sought to be contended by the petitioners that the allegation that they failed to bring the land into cultivation is false, having regard to the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the respondents 1 and 3, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioners that they have been cultivating the land. However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners this is a case where the assignment was granted in favour of the father of the petitioners in the year 1968, whereas the proceedings for resumption of the land were initiated in the year 2000 after more than 30 years. Though no period of limitation is provided for exercise of powers of review under Section 166 (b) of the Act, as held in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others[1], the power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and the nature of the order, which is being revised, the proceedings initiated by the respondents after lapse of more than 30 years, in my considered opinion cannot be held to be within a reasonable time. It is also relevant to note that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 172 of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh made Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958 regulating to assignment of Government lands in supersession of all previous orders on the subject applicable to the Telangana area. Admittedly, the assignment in favour of the petitioners was made in terms of the said Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.1406. No doubt Rule 6 of the said Rules provides that the lands assigned should be brought under cultivation within three years, but the Rules do not contain any provision for resumption of the assigned lands. As held by this Court i n Sanjay Rural Electrical Co-operative Society Limited, Jogipet Vs. G.Mallaiah and others[2], since statutory rights are created in favour of the assignees, power of resumption has also to be statutorily provided. In the absence of such statutory provision, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the power of resumption on the ground of breach of the conditions of the assignment is not available either to the 2nd respondent or the 3rd respondent. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders of resumption being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 29.11.2011 Ivd/Klp [1] AIR 1969 SC 1297 [2] 1994 (3) ALT 593 (D.B)