( 1 ) THE petitioners purchased an extent of Acs. 5-00 and 2-14 gts. respectively, from respondents 3 to 5 herein. Be it noted that the respondents 3 to 5 herein are sons of late Mohammed Ghouse pasha, who was Muthawalli of Darga huzrath Mir Masoom AH Shah. Be it also noted that the land admeasuring Acs. 10-00 in reserve forest block was excluded by the Reserve Forest Officer by notification dated 12-04-1972, as it was a Wakf land. After death of Muthawalli, Mohammed ghouse Pasha, his three sons, respondents 3 to 5 herein were given succession and subsequently, they sold away the land to three persons including the petitioners herein.

( 2 ) THE Mandal Revenue Officer by letter dated 8-5-2002 reported the matter to 2003 (5) ALD Sept. 15th the Joint Collector - the first respondent herein as respondents 3 to 5 sold away the wakf land to the petitioners and the mutation was done and the record of rights was accordingly altered. The Joint Collector took up the matter under Section 9 of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books act, 1971 (the Act ). The Joint Collector issued notices to the petitioners. They appeared before the Joint Collector and filed detailed written arguments contending that H. E. H. Nizam granted land to mohammed Ghouse Pasha in his individual capacity and not to Wakf known as Darga hazrath Mir Masoom Ali Shah. The joint Collector considered the entire material especially the notification issued under section 15 of A. P. Forest Act, 1967 and recorded a finding that the land was a grant to Wakf and not to its Muthawalli. Accordingly by the impugned order dated 24-5-2003, he directed the Mandal Revenue officer - the second respondent herein to take necessary steps to correct entries in the relevant revenue records and enter the name of "dargah Hazrath Mir Masoom ali Shah Saheb for the years wherever occurring right from the year 1972 onwards. The Joint Collector also set aside the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 24-10-1991 and subsequent proceedings dated 23-10-1993 and 15-11-1996 whereby the mutation record was altered showing the names either petitioners or respondents 3 to 5.

( 3 ) THE learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mohammed Imtiaz appearing for the petitioners raised two contentions; firstly, he contends that Section 9 of the Act does not stipulate any time within which the Joint collector can exercise suo motu power. Therefore, according to the Senior Counsel, the power should be exercised within a reasonable time and the exercise of power after lapse of ten years is unsustainable in law. He also placed strong reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha, AIR, 1969 SC 1297. Secondly, learned senior counsel would submit that the land was a grant to Mohammed Ghouse Pasha, the father of respondents 3 to 5, and it is not a grant to Wakf and reliance is placed on the letter issued from the Office of the secretary (Administration), Private Estate, h. E. H. The Nizam, dated 29th October, 1964 under reference File No. 45 (32) Baghat 1962.

( 4 ) IT is now well settled that when tatute does not prescribe any time for exercise of a particular power, the power should be exercised within a reasonable time (See Hindustan Times v. Union of India, air 1998 SC 688 ). In a latest judgment rendered by me in C. Subhash Mudiraj v. Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments department, Hyderabad, 2003 (2) AID 750, i considered these aspects and laid down as under:"in my considered opinion, having regard to the nature of the power under sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Act, whereunder the commissioner is vested with sue motu powers of revision to call for records for examination and modify or annul any order, the said power cannot be allowed to be defeated by the period of limitation under sub-section (4) of Section 92 of the Act. In a given case, arguably, on application by aggrieved person made beyond ninety days, can itself be the basis for the Commiss