THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12114 OF 2002 14.06.2010 Between: Boorja Thavitayya and another ….Petitioners AND Commissioner, appeals, Office of Chief Commissioner Of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12114 OF 2002 ORDER: The two petitioners purchased land admeasuring Acs.10.62 in R.S.Nos.18/5 (Acs.6.17); R.S.No.18/6 (Acs.4.26) and R.S.No.18/7 (Acs.0.29) situated at Nivagam village of Kottur Mandal in Srikakulam District, from V.Lakshmi Naidu and others. The petitioners’ vendors were granted patta under Section 11(a) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereafter called, the Act). Second respondent, namely, Director of Settlements (DoS), Hyderabad, in exercise of suo motu powers under Section 5(2) of the Act cancelled patta. The order of DoS was affirmed by first respondent, namely, the Commissioner of Appeals in the office of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA). Aggrieved by the order of CCLA, present writ petition is filed. The subject land formed part of Parlakimidi Zamin Estate which was notified and taken over under the Act vide Notification, dated 25.05.1954. Lakshmi Naidu and seven others filed claim petition under Section 11(a) of the Act for grant of patta. The Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam conducted enquiry. Oral evidence of P.W.1 and documents, Exs.P.1 to P.8 being premium receipts and cist receipts were marked in proof of possession and cultivation as on 01.07.1945 to claim patta. Considering evidence, Settlement Officer passed orders in S.R.ii (a) 104/71, SKL, dated 28.04.1972 granting patta to Laxmi Naidu and others. Pattadars were implemented in revenue records. A decade thereafter petitioners purchased land covered by ryotwari patta under registered sale deed, dated 12.03.1983. The petitioners statedly are in possession and cultivating the land all these years. A quarter century after the grant of patta by the Settlement Officer in favour of petitioners’ vendors, the DoS inspected the office of the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam. He allegedly found certain incongruous circumstances which led to grant of patta in favour of petitioners’ vendors. These are (i) cist receipts not containing patta numbers and containing survey numbers only; (ii) premium receipts and cist receipts for different years containing serial numbers in sequence; (iii) the cist receipts for yester years containing the dates in 1940, 1941 and 1942 and the reliance placed by Settlement Officer on invalid pre-abolition records and objectionable and doubtful post-abolition record. Therefore, the DoS issued show cause notice, and after conducting proceedings in exercise of suo motu revisional powers under Section 5(2) of the Act set aside the proceedings of the Settlement Officer dated 28.04.1972. The patta issued to petitioners’ vendors, therefore, was cancelled. The petitioners herein preferred an appeal before Commissioner under Section 7(1)(d) of the Act. The Commissioner refused to interfere with the order of DoS on additional grounds namely, the lands in survey Nos.18/5, 18/6 and 18/7 are classified as ‘Anadhinam Punja’ and ‘Anadhinam Manvari’ and also classified as ‘Gayalu’. The counsel for petitioners relies on two Division Bench Judgments in support of the contention that the exercise of suo motu revision powers either by DoS or the Commissioner after lapse of more than 25 years is arbitrary and illegal. The Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 made submissions reiterating counter averments. Section 5(2) of the Act while making the Settlement Officer subordinate to the DoS confers power on the latter to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Estates Abolition Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act. Section 7(1)(d) of the Act is to the effect that the Board of Revenue shall have power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the DoS or any District Collector including those passed, done or taken in exercise of revisional powers. Section 5(2) and 7(1)(d) of the Act do not prescribe any period of limitation. They are provisions confirming suo motu powers on the two authorities to revise any order passed by Settlement Officer/DoS. It is well settled that in such cases, the revisional power has to be exercised within reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period depends on facts and circumstances of each case. (See State of Gujarat v Patel Raghav[1], M/s Hindustan Times v Union of India[2] and Jai Mangal Oraon v Mira Nayah[3]). This rule of implied reasonable period of limitation is subject to exception that if an order is obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation, at any time the revisional authority can cancel the order, because ‘fraud unravels everything’. What would be reasonable period for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 5(2) or 7(1)(d) of the Act. I n S.B.Dharma Reddy v Director of Settlements[4], Division Bench of this Court was considering the case where DoS in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 5(2) of the Act after lapse of 27 years issued a show cause notice. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Before the Division Bench, it was contended that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the DoS beyond reasonable time cannot be sustained. This Court relied on Patel Raghav and allowed the writ appeal. The relevant observations are as follows (para 5). … It must be noticed that the nature of the right claimed by the petitioner-appellant before the Settlement Officer under Section 11(a) is qualitatively different from the right of the occupant of an agricultural land, dealt with by Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Under the Estates Abolition Act, all the rights in the estate vest in the State on the taking over of an estate. Thereafter proceedings have to be taken for grant of patta under various provisions, including Section 11(a). If the conditions prescribed in clause (a) of Section11 are satisfied, the ryotwari patta will be granted to the ryot. The Assistant Settlement Officer is the authority to be satisfied in this behalf. The Act has created several authorities for implementing the Act. Assistant Settlement Officer and the Director of Settlements are two of such authorities. Section 5(2) of the Act expressly declares that ‘every Settlement Office shall be subordinate to the Director and shall be guided by such lawful instructions as he may issue from time to time’, and further that ‘the Director shall also have power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts, or proceedings of the Settlement Officers other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal’. Such powers are conferred upon the Director to ensure proper implementation of the Act. Proper implementation of the Act means that, a ryot who is legitimately entitled to a patta should not be denied the same. It also means that a ryotwari patta should not be granted under Section 11(a) to any one, who is not legitimately entitled to it, since such a course would be prejudicial to public interest. In such a situation, the observation of the Supreme Court that three months’ time prescribed in Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code can also be taken as a reasonable time within which the suo motu power of revision should be exercised under Section 211 of that Code, can hardly be imported. The basic provisions are different: the nature of the rights of the parties is different, as also the nature of the orders passed by the authorities. It is, therefore, erroneous to contend that the power of revision conferred upon the Director by Section 5(2) should necessarily be exercised within a particular period to be specified by this Court, whether it is three months, or three years. That should be left to be decided in the facts and circumstances of a given case, as explained above. There may be a case where a person may play a fraud and obtain a patta; there may be a case where a patta is obtained by misrepresentation. In such cases, drawing a line beyond which the power of revision cannot be exercised, would defeat the purpose of the Act, and would be prejudicial to public interest. This Court will interfere at this stage only in cases where the exercise of power is ex facie oppressive and unreasonable, or where the unreasonableness is too self-evident. It must be seen that the land in respect of which patta is not granted to any one, vests in the State. In a recent Judgment in R.K.Devi v Commissioner of Survey, Settlements & Land Records[5], a Division Bench of this Court while considering Section 5(2) of the Act observed as under. The entertainment of the review after a period of five years for cancellation of the pattas granted in the year 1958 is wholly unjustified. The Act does not specifically provide for any review. But however, the review can be entertained provided any fraud or misrepresentation or any grounds of such nature, were proved. In the present case as already noted above, no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, were proved by the Government and in such a case after the futile exercise by the Government in the writ petition in W.P.No.5417 of 1985 and in the first appeal, entertaining the review petition, pertaining to the land in the very same survey numbers, is not maintainable. In the case on hand, the Settlement Officer almost forty years ago considered oral and documentary evidence produced by occupants and granted patta under Section 11(a) of the Act. If the grant of patta is faulted by DoS after lapse of 25 years, as rightly pointed by petitioners’ counsel, it would disturb the chain of events in relation with the property which have occurred and which might have occurred. Therefore, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 5(2) of the Act is clearly unsustainable. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order of first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent is set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled for the costs from respondents 1 to 3. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14.06.2010 Pln [1] AIR 1969 SC 1297 = (1969) 2 SCC 169 [2] AIR 1988 SC 688 [3] (2000) 5 SCC 141 [4] 1989 (1) A.P.L.J. 598 [5] 2009 (6) ALD 788 (DB)