A
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
B
v.
KALLETI CHENGAIAH
MARCH 1, 1996
[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
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
l
1
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."
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
c
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.
Lex