IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.5321 of 2002 Between: A.Gopalaswamy and another. … Petitioners And: Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao for Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar. Counsel for the Respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus to set aside orders, dated 13-12-1999 and 7-6-2001, passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, neither the Government Pleader nor the Assistant Government Pleaders are present. The father of the petitioners obtained ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) from the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, under order dated 31-1-1975 in respect of Ac.1.50 cents of land in R.S.No.125/6P of Brahmantarla village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, which has been in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners after the death of their father. The Tahsildar, Tekkali, filed an appeal against the said order before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, with a delay of 128 days. The delay application along with the appeal was dismissed. The revision petition filed by the Tahsildar, Tekkali, against the said order was also dismissed by the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by order dated 23-12-1976. The said order was allowed to become final by the respondents. However, nearly 23 years after dismissal of the revision petition, respondent No.1 exercised suo motu revisional powers under Section 5(2) of the Act by issuing a notice to the petitioners to show-cause why the ryotwari patta granted in their favour shall not be cancelled. The petitioners engaged a counsel, who evidently made a request to respondent No.1, during the hearing of the case, to adjourn the case, which was posted finally on 27-11-1999. While rejecting the said request, respondent No.1 has considered the case on merits, on the basis of the material available on record, and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta to the father of the petitioners by order dated 13-12-1999. The petitioners filed a revision against the said order before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, respondent No.2 herein. The said revision was dismissed by respondent No.2, vide: his order dated 7- 6-2001. Feeling aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. At the hearing, Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that respondent No.1 committed a serious illegality in exercising suo motu powers and revising the order passed by the Settlement Officer in favour of the father of the petitioners after a lapse of about 23 years. The learned counsel further submitted that though the said objection was specifically raised before respondent No.2, he did not advert to the same and render any finding thereon. Section 5(2) of the Act reads as under: “5(2). Every Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the Director and shall be guided by such lawful instructions as he may issue from time to time; and the Director shall also have power to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal”. The above reproduced provision undoubtedly vests power with respondent No.1 to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer, other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. This provision does not stipulate any time limit for exercising such a power. However, in a plethora of judgments the Apex Court and also this Court held that even where no time limit is stipulated to exercise suo motu revisional powers, the authority should exercise the same within a reasonable time. It was further held that what is reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (See. State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others[1], A. Kodanda Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh[2], S.B. Dharma Reddy vs. The Director of Settlements, A.P. Hyderabad and another[3], Smt. P. Mangamma and others vs. The Women’s Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Hyderabad[4], Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham vs. K.Suresh Reddy and others[5], Hindusthan Times vs. Union of India[6], Mnsoram vs. S.P.Pathak[7], Ramchand vs. Union of India[8], Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham vs. K. Suresh Reddy[9] and Madamaneni Chinnaswamy (died) per LRs., V.Joint Collector, Chittoor[10]). In the instant case, the grounds on which the order of the Settlement Officer was revised were that as per the pre and post abolition records of the village the land in question was recorded as a grazing ground poramboke (Government land); and that the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, granted patta erroneously basing on the sale deeds of the years 1963 and 1964, which relate to post abolition period. It is not the case of the respondents that the father of the petitioners played fraud on the Settlement Officer in obtaining the patta and that the same could not be detected until before the initiation of suo motu proceedings. The reason behind reading the limitation into the statutory provision is to bring a finality to the orders passed by the authorities and to avoid Damocles sword hanging over the head of the citizens. Even assuming that grant of ryotwari patta to the father of the petitioners was erroneous in law, nothing prevented the respondents from assailing the revisional order passed by respondent No.2 in the year 1976 before the appropriate Court of law or at least respondent No.1 from initiating suo muto proceedings immediately after disposal of the revision by respondent No.2. No reasons have been forthcoming from respondent No.1 for keeping silent for nearly 23 years before initiating the suo motu proceedings. Having allowed substantial time to pass, it was not open to respondent No.1 to initiate suo motu proceedings at his leisure to unsettle the settled rights of the petitioners. Though the petitioners specifically raised the plea of inordinate delay in exercising suo motu powers by respondent No.1 in the appeal filed before respondent No.2, the latter failed to deal with the same. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:15-10-2009 MNR [1] AIR 1969 SC 1297 [2] 1981 (2) ALT 280 [3] 1989 (1) ALT 51 (SN) [4] 1995 (3) ALT 330 (DB) [5] 1996 (2) An.W.R. 511 [6] AIR 1988 SC 688 [7] (1984) 1 SCC 125 [8] (1994) 1 SCC 44 [9] (2003) 7 SCC 667 [10]) 2009 (1) ALT 424.