T. MEENA KUMARI, J.

( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the second respondent in R. P. 32/90 (A2), dated 25. 3. 1991, and consequential action of the respondents 3 and 4, in directing the petitioners not to enter into the lands situated in Sy. Nos. 96 and 171 of Toorpuchoutupalem admeasuring Ac. 1. 52 cents and Ac. 12. 73 cents respectively, as illegal and arbitrary.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, nellore, in his proceedings Sr. No. 505/ll/a/ 63, dated 27. 2. 1971, granted pattas in favour of the father of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3 to an extent of Ac. 12. 73 cents in Sy. No. 171 of Toorpuchoutupalem village under Section 11 (a) of the estate Abolition Act. It is also their case that Petitioners 4, 5 and 6 have purchased ac. 3-00 cents and Ac. 1-00 cents respectively from the original grantees through a registered sale deed, dated 6. 7. 1987 and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, as the then Tahsildar, Darsi, had reported some irregularities in granting the pattas, the director of Settlements, Hyderabad, conducted suo-motu enquiry and passed the impugned order remanding the case to the settlement Officer and Joint Collector, prakasam District, with a direction to hold de novo enquiry and for disposal according to law. While so, the Revenue Inspector, darsi, issued a notice, dated 14-9-1994, asking the petitioners to attend for an enquiry to establish their rights and possession over the lands in question. Thereupon, the petitioners attended before him and brought all the facts to his notice, but the Revenue inspector, Darsi, caused tomtom in the village and then directed the petitioners not to enter into the said land. Hence, the present writ petition.

( 3 ) THE 3rd respondent filed the counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the observations made by the Director of settlements, A. P. , Hyderabad, in the impugned order is not based on any merits but only on the presumption that the lower Court records are not available before him. The learned Counsel further argued that the Settlement Officer has observed in his order that the Settlement Officer, nellore, has furnished an extract of fair adangal of Sy No. 171 of Toorpuchantapalem village and also reported that orders passed in S. R. No. 505/ll (a)/63, dated 27. 2. 1967 were implemented in the names of the father of the 1st petitioner and Petitioners 2 and 3. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Director of Settlement, Hyderabad, having observed that the Settlement Officer furnished an extract of the fair adangal and reported about the implementation of the same, erred in observing that the records of the lower Court are not available with him to examine whether the respondents have any claim under Section 11 (a) of the Estate Abolition Act. It is also further argued that the respondents have to invoke the power of de novo enquiry within a reasonable time but in this case they have chosen to exercise such power nearly after a lapse of 24 years from the date of granting of patta in favour of the petitioners. The learned Counsel further contended that the factum of reopening of the case and conducting de novo enquiry by the concerned authorities has to be done within a reasonable time.

( 5 ) TO support his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon catena of decisions. He relied upon a decision reported in A. Kodanda Rao v. Government of A. P. , 1981 (2) APLJ 158, wherein it is held that:"in our view in cases where no period of limitation is prescribed under the statute or the rules made thereunder for exercise of revisional powers suo-motu, the question for consideration is not whether the exercise of the power is barred by limitatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document