THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.10012 OF 2004 Date: 08-02-2008 Between : Ocean Park Multitech Limited, a limited company, Rep. By its Managing Director, Sri M. Venkateswara Rao. … Petitioner And 1. The Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad., and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.10012 OF 2004 ORDER : The petitioner is a limited company which has been carrying on the business of Water Amusement Park near Gandipet. It is stated that for the purpose of its business the petitioner purchased land situated in Sy.No.166/5 of Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District under two Registered Sale Deeds dated 23.12.1985 and 2.2.1996. It is claimed that from the date of purchase the petitioner has been in possession of the said land along with various other extents purchased from different sources and has been carrying on its business of Water Amusement Park. While so, the 1st respondent – Joint Collector, R.R. District issued a notice dated 17.1.2001 informing the petitioner that as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, dated 21.12.2000 it was found that the land in Sy.No.166 of Kokapet Village measuring 41 acres 32 guntas was classified as poramboke sarkari in the pahanis for the years 1950, 1951, 1952 & 1953, however the same was wrongly recorded as patta land from the year 1954-55 onwards showing the names of different pattadars including the writ petitioner. In the circumstances, having taken up a suo motu enquiry under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘ROR Act, 1971’), the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why the land in Sy.No.166 should not be treated as Government land. In response to the same, the petitioner participated in the enquiry before the 1st respondent and filed a detailed counter-affidavit dated 5.7.2001 denying the allegation that the land in question was Government land. It was also specifically contended that the respondents were estopped from making a claim that the said land was Government land after a lapse of 40 years and the enquiry initiated under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 was not maintainable. After hearing all the parties concerned, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 30.8.2003 holding that the land admeasuring 41 acres 32 cents situated in Sy.No.166 of Kokapet Village was originally poramboke sarkari land and the name of one Abdul Gafoor was recorded as pattadar in the pahani for the year 1954-55 without any order from the competent authority . Thus, it was concluded that the said entries in the pahanis from the year 1954-55 onwards were liable to expunged and the Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to take necessary action accordingly. There was also a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to take action for restoration of the land to the Government. The said order passed by the 1st respondent dated 30.8.2003 is under challenge in this writ petition in which the petitioner seeks a Mandamus declaring that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and barred by limitation. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents reiterating the reasons in the impugned order that the land in question was classified as poramboke sarkari as per the original sethwar as well as the pahanis for the year 1950, 1951 and 1952-53. It was also contended that the entry in pahanis showing the name of Abdul Gafoor was erroneous and did not confer any rights on the petitioner. It was also stated that on the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar dated 21.12.2000 proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent and after hearing the petitioner and other concerned persons the impugned order was rightly passed to rectify the entries. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the vendors of the petitioner company claimed title to the land in question through Abdul Gafoor whose name was shown as pattadar in the pahani of the year 1954-55. However, the impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the power of revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 cannot be exercised after a long lapse of 50 years and therefore the impugned order is liable to be declared as illegal on that ground alone. The learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the decisions in IBRAHIMPATNAM TALUK VYAVASAYA COOLIE SANGDHAM v. K. SURESH REDDY[1] and S. SANTHANAM v. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS[2] vehemently contended that even the suo motu revisional jurisdiction conferred on the 1st respondent under Section 9 of the Act should be exercised within a reasonable time and the period of more than 50 years under no circumstances can be said to be reasonable. Admittedly, the impugned order is passed in exercise of suo motu revisional power available under Section 9 of the ROR Act for which no limitation is prescribed. The law is well settled that even though no period of limitation is prescribed under the statute such suo motu power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. However, it is equally well settled that the length of the reasonable time must be determined on the basis of the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised [ vide STATE OF GUJARAT v. P. RAGHAV {AIR 1969 SC 1297} and COLLECTOR & ORS. v. P. MANGAMMA & ORS. {2003 (2) Supreme Today 393} ] As a matter of fact, the 1st respondent has taken note of the settled legal position with regard to exercise of suo motu revisional powers in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order. However, without considering the question whether in the instant case it was reasonable to reopen the matter after a period of 50 years, the 1st respondent concluded that the names of the pattadars from the pahanis for the years 1954-55 onwards should be deleted and action should be taken for restoration of the land to the Government. As noticed above, whether the time within which the suo motu power can be exercised is reasonable or not requires consideration basing on the facts and circumstances of a particular case and the nature of the order sought to be varied. It is essentially a question of fact which ought to have been considered and decided by the 1st respondent before arriving at a conclusion on merits. Since the 1st respondent failed to consider the said aspect in spite of specific contention raised by the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the question whether the suo motu power of review invoked by the 1st respondent is within a reasonable time or not, much less with regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 08–02-2008 gbs [1] (2003) 7 SCC 667 [2] 2006 (2) ALD 566 (D.B.)