( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The appellant had filed W. P. 19058/87 for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction, restraining the respondent, Director of Settlements, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad, from proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to his notice dated 1-12-1987. Under the said notice, the Director had called upon the appellant to show cause why the orders of the Settlement offier, Neliore, dated 31-1-1961 and 27-1-1977 should not be revised and cancelled in exercise of the revisional powers of the Director under Section 5 (2) of the Estates Abolition act. By proceedings dated 31-1-1961 patta in respect of 15 Acres was granted in favour of the appellant, and by proceedings dated 27-1-1977 patta for an additional extent of Acs. 14-96 Cents was granted under Section 11 (a) ofthe Estates abolition Act. The show-cause notice also states the reasons for which the orders of the Settlement Officer are sought to be revised. They are:-" (1) The possession and occupation of scheduled land have not been proved with any documentary evidence. Oral evidence alone is not sufficient. (2) To establish adverse possession under Explanation to Section 3 (15) of the estates Land Act, 1908, one should be in possession and occupation of ryoti land for a continuous period of 12 years, for agri. cultural purposes. (3) Cist receipts alone already on record cannot be considered as sufficient proof of payment of rent to the entire extent claimed".

( 2 ) SOON upon receiving the said show-cause notice the appellant approached this Court by way of writ-petition. His main contention was that exercise of revisory powers after a lapse of about 27 years, or for that matter, after a lapse of 10 years, is an instance of unreasonable and oppressive exercise of power, and ought to be interdicted by this Court. The respondent- director s case, however, was that both the orders of 1961 and 1977 were not communicated to him : that he was, therefore, unaware of them, and that only when the orders were brought to his notice by the 2nd respondent and through a letter of the Lok- Ayukta did he come to know of hem and afier making th; necessary enquiry he has initiated proceedings for revising the said orders. The second-respondent, who is in the nature of an informant, submitted that the appellant has obtained pattas by fabricating the revenue records, taking advantage of his position as Village Munsif during the relevant time. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition following the Bench decision of this Court in mirza Muzamdur Husiain Vs. D. Bhaskara reddy (1) AIR 1988, A. P. 13. The learned judge observed that it is for the Director to decide, taking all the relevant facts into consideration, including the tiins lapsed, whether he should exercise his revisory powers. The learned Judge said, no hard and fast rule of limitation canjbe enunciated in this behalf, and it must be left to the revising authority to take the time factor also into consideration while making up his mind whether to revise the order of the sobordinate authority, or not. The correct, ness of the said view is questioned in this writ Appeal. Reliance is placed upon an earlier decision of a Bench of this Court in kodanda Rao Vs. Government of Andhra pradesh (2) 1981- (2) A. L. T. 280. where it was held that exercise of revisional jurisdiction suo motu beyond a reasonable time cannot be sustained, and such an exercise of power interdicted by this Court under art. 226 of the Constitution. Reliance is also placed upon the recent decision of a learned single Judge of this Court, reported n 1989- (I) ALT, 124 Substantial reliance, of cousre, is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. P. Raghav (3) AIR 1969, s. C. 1297. It is submitted that in the said decision the Supreme Court held that the power of revision should be exercised w