THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :30792 of 2010 Date: 8.12.2010 Between: M.P. Gangulamma ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri L.J. Veera Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : A.G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :30792 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in initiating proceedings for cancellation of assignment granted to the petitioner vide DKT No.13/1408 over an extent of Acs. 0.41 cents in survey No. 435 and Acs.3.22 cents in Survey No. 432 of Korlakunta Village, Galiveedu Mandal, Kadapa District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner was granted D.K.T. patta in respect of the above mentioned land. On a representation stated to have been made by one M.P. Chandrasekhar Reddy, the respondent has issued notice dated 12.11.2010 calling upon the petitioner to appear in person or through a counsel before him on 20.11.2010. This notice is assailed in this writ petition mainly on the ground that under BSO 15(18), the respondent cannot entertain a revision petition either suo motu or on application of a third party after a long lapse of eleven years. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to raise these contentions before the respondent. It is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent for this Court to interdict the proceedings initiated by him at this stage. The law is well settled that even in the absence of prescription of time limit, the revisional authority is bound to exercise its power to examine the legality, regularity and propriety of any order within a reasonable time and what would be the reasonable time depends upon the facts of each case. This Court in considered the relevant case law and discussed in detail the position of law in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to plead before the respondent that initiation of proceedings after a lapse of eleven years is unwarranted on the facts of the case. If such plea along with other legally sustainable pleas are raised by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, W.P.M.P. No.39161 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 8th December, 2010 pnb