GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.versusKALLETI CHENGAIAH

A           GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
                                        v.
                            KALLETI CHENGAIAH

                                MARCH 1, 1996

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ]

         Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into
    Ryotwari Act), 1948: Sections 5(2) and ll(a).

          Revision-Suo motu exercise ofpowe,-Time limit-Held power should
C be exercised within reasonable time-Reasonable time depends upon facts of
                                                                                  l
    each case.

        Settlement Officei--Grant of Ryotwari Patta by Enquiry revealing grant
  was in contravention of statutory provisions-Destruction of record-Exercise
  of suo motu revision power by Director of Setllement-Setting aside order of
D Settlement Officer-Held justified-lnteiference with order of Director of Set-
  tlement by High Court held not co"ect.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4422/96.

E        From the judgment and order dated 28th July, 1993 of the Andhra
    Pradesh High Court in WA. No. 752 of 1992.

          C. Balasubramaniam and K. Ram Kumar for the Appellants.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F         Leave granted.

        This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division
  Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated July 28, 1993 made in
  Writ Appeal No. 752/92. The Director of Settlement by his order dated
  October 25, 1990 suo motu exercised power under Section 5(2) of the
G Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into
  Ryotwari Act (26 of 1948) (for short, the 'Act') and set aside the order of
  the Settlement Officer dated February 7, 1983 granting ryotwari patta
  under Section ll(a) of the Act to the respondent. When that order was
  challenged by way of writ petition, the learned single Judge set aside the
H order holding that the exercise of the power after long lapse of time was
                                      176
              GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH'· KALLE°IT CHENGAIAH            177

    arbitrary; there was no material produced to show circumstances under A
    which the power came to be exercised and that, under those·circumstances,
    the ord.er setting aside the grant of ryotwari patta is illegal.

         It is seen that Section 5(2) of the Act gives power as under :

             "Every Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the Director and   B
             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."
1                                                                                 c
          It is settled law that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised
    within reasonable time. When it is held that the power may be exercised
    from time to time. What would be the reasonable time depends upon facts
    of each case. It is seen that in this case the orders were issued by the
    Settlement Officer contrary to the provisions and it was not known till an D
    enquiry was held and until it came to light that the exercise of power by
    the Settlement officer under Section 11 (a) of the Act was clearly in
    contravention of the provisions of the Act. Under those circumstances, the
    Director was constrained to exercise the power. It is also seen that when
    the record was called for it came to light that the record was destroyed. It
    would be obvious that the persons behind the scheme had managed to see E
    that the records were destroyed. Considered from this perspective, we are
    of the view that the High Court was clearly in error in interfering with the
    order of the Director of Settlement.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the single Judge
    and the Division Bench are set aside and that of the Director of Settlement   F
    stands restored. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                    Appeal allowed.