THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.A.1217 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble smt Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is preferred against an order d 17.10.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No.53 2002 wherein the learned single Judge quashed the order d 31.12.2001 passed by the 3rd appellant herein and set aside orders of cancellation of entries in record of rights and pahanie respect of land admeasuring Ac.23.38 guntas in Sy.No.203/ Kalvakunta Village. 02. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition that the writ petitioners claimed that one P.Narasimha Rao was absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.203/2 of an exte 23.38 guntas and that he had been paying land revenue to Government from 1940 onwards and one Mohammed Bilal go name recorded as pattadar in revenue records of 1947-48 and said Bilal sold the property to one Ramakrishna Reddy. It is stated that when Ramakrishna Reddy tried to interfere with possession of Narasimha Rao, he filed a suit in the District M Court, Sangareddy and it was numbered as O.S.No.33 of 19 Later, it was transferred to District Munsif Court, Adloor and same was re-numbered as O.S.No.7 of 1972. The said suit decreed in favour o f Narasimha Rao basing on the evide given by revenue officials who were summoned on behalf of plaintiff. It is also averred that the first appeal in A.S.No.1 of 1 filed against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.7 of 972 was dismissed b y th e learned District Judge, Medak and Judgment and decree in Original suit and first appeal were confirmed by this Cou S.A.No.805 of 1974. It was also stated that the said Ramakrishna Reddy also O.S.No.22 of 1978 for recovery of possession from Narasimha Rao in the Cou Additional District Judge, Medak and the same was dismissed 21.3.1979. It is also averred in the writ petition that the ab mentioned land was attached in the year 1963 for non-payme revenue and it was released in favour of Narasimha Rao in the 1969 and on the application made by Narasimha Rao to the appellant herein, the name of Mohammad Bilal was deleted revenue records. Later, the respondents herein entered into agreement with Narasimha Rao to purchase Ac.16-00 of land o Ac.23.38 guntas of land and as the legal representative Narasimha Rao failed to honour the agreement of sale, petitioners filed O.S.No.17 of 1996 for specific performance and same was decreed. It is further averred that when the Sub-Registrar, Sangare took an objection to register the property, the petitioners approac the 4th appellant herein, who on enquiry, wrote a letter on 7.12.1 to Sub-Registrar stating that the said land does not belon Government and it is a patta land and inform the Sub Registr register the same and as such the land was registered in the n of the respondents herein. It is also averred that respondent Nos.1 to 4 sold Ac.8-00 of land in favour of 5th respondent herein and when applied for a lay out, it was rejected. Questioning the same, WP No.2989 of 1992 was filed and lay out was sanctioned purs to the interim orders. While so, the 4th appellant herein iss notice on 22.1.1999 stating that the said land is an assigned and that the sale transaction is hit by the provisions of AP Assig lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. While the proceeding the 4th appellant are pending, 3rd appellant herein initi proceedings by way of show cause notice suo motu on 8.2.2 under Section 9 of AP Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Book 1971. Questioning the same, the respondents herein filed No.3388 of 2000 and the same was disposed of on 5.12.2000 w direction to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate ord Accordingly, after enquiry, the appellant No.3 herein, passed or on 31.12.2001 anulling the entries existing in ROR and paha and directed to record the name of the Government in the ROR pahanies. 03. The learned single Judge after hearing both sides allowed writ petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the or passed by the 3rd appellant mainly on the ground that Government initiated suo motu proceedings after lapse of 40 y and that the name of P.Narasimha Rao i.e., vendor of respondents herein is in revenue records in 1962-63 and even in civil litigation also the said Narasimha Rao succeeded althrou The learned single judge also observed that 4th appellant he addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar on 7.12.1998 stating that the land does not belon the Government. Questioning the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 04. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue as as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 05. The learned Government Pleader contends that the lea single Judge erred i n holding that 3rd appellant initi proceedings after lapse of 40 years. He further submits that the proceedings in favour of representatives of late Narasimha Rao were initiated in the 1980 and the same were cancelled in the year 2000 and as s the suo motu proceedings by 3rd appellant were initiated withi years which is well within the period of limitation. He fu contends that the learned single Judge mainly set aside proceedings of 3rd appellant solely on the ground of delay bu failed to consider other merits of the case. 06. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the order passed by the learned S judge. 07. A perusal of the record goes to show that the learned s Judge mainly relied on the judgment of the Apex Cou Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K.Su Reddy and others[1], and also relied on the judgments of this C in Smt P.Mangamma and others v. The Women’s Coopera Housing Society Limited, Barakatpura, Hyderabad[2], Gud Sailoo and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[3], obse that exercise of suo motu revisional powers by a quasi jud authority under AP Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books 1971, if initiated after lapse of several years would amo inappropriate exercise of powers vested with a quasi jud authority. In this case, as per the observations made in impugned judgment, it goes to show that the said Narasimha initiated proceedings by way of filing civil suit in the year 1965 w his possession was interfered with one Ramakrishna Reddy ultimately his name was mutated in the revenue records in the 1969. Thus, it shows that the name of the vendor of the respond namely P.Narasimha Rao was mutated in the year 1969 whereas the 3rd appe initiated proceedings suo motu in the year 2000 i.e., after lapse o years. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments held that the quasi judicial authority initiated the proceedings lapse of 30 years which is impermissible in law. 08. With regard to the other contentions pleaded by the lea Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge did not take consideration of other aspects and he mainly relied on the d while setting aside the orders of the 3rd appellant. A perusal o order of the learned single Judge goes to show that the lea Single Judge observed that the name of Narasimha Rao entered in the pahani in the year 1962-63 and he also obse that the 4th appellant herein addressed a letter to the Sub-Registra 7.12.1998 intimating that the said land does not belong Government and basing on the said letter of the 4th appellant lands were registered by Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the representation o petitioners herein made on 26.2.1980 was forwarded by the appellant to take action pursuant to the Judgment in S.A.No.80 1974 and accordingly, the names of the respondents w mutated. No material was placed before this court about the ac initiated by the appellant Nos.1 to 3 against the 4th appellant for addressing a letter to Sangareddy Sub-Registrar intimating the land does not belong to Government. In view of the above discussion, there are no merits in this case and the same is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. _____________________ (Justice T.Meena Kumari) rkk Dated: 13.10.2009 _____________________ (Justice G.V.Seethapathy) [1] (2003) 7 SCC 667 [2] 1995 (3) ALT 330 (DB) [3] 1998(3) ALD 652