( 1 ) THE 16 petitioners were granted pattas under Section 5 of the A. P. Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) regulation (Regulation II of 1969) by the settlement Officer, who is the competent authority under the Regulation. The petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment to lands. They applied for transit permits as there was forest growth in the land, in accordance with the provisions of chapter III-A of the A. P. Forests Act. The applications were made on 21-8-85. As the district Collector did not choose to act on the applications of the petitioners, W. P. No. 14272/85 was filed for a direction to issue transit permits. The said writ petition was resisted by the Divisional Forest officer, Kakinada who was one of the respondents therein, contending that the appeal against the order dated 2-2-1975 of the Settlement Officer granting pattas. is pending before the Director of Settlement and since the pattas themselves are under challenge, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Basing on this statement, that writ petition was disposed of on 17-4-87 with a direction to the- Director of Settlement to dispose of the appeals pending before him within eight weeks therefrom Later it turned out that no appeal was preferred against the order of the Settlement Officer gran ing pattas and the statement of the divisional Forest Offirer, Kakinada that an appeal is pending was incorrect. In fact the Divisional Forest Officer, Kikinada wrote a letter on 17--9-1978 to the Director of Settlements stating that no appeals have been preferred. He requited the Director of Settlement; to initiate sao nutu proceedings for caueeilation of pattas. However, no action was taken parsuant to the letter dated 17-9-1987. But curiously the Director of Settlements issued a notice dated 29-8-1987 in purported exercise of the revisioaal power under section 4 (4) of the Regulation to show cause as to why the pattas granted by the settlement Officer by order dated 2-2-75 should not be cancelled. The petitioners were directed to be present at the enquiry, on intimation of the date. The notice indicated that the pattas were granted in violation of the provisions of Regulation II of 1969. Pending exercise of the suo motu power, he passed an order on 30-10-87 granting stay of the operation of the orders of the Settlement Officer dated 2-2-75 granting pattas. At that stage the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus or any other direction interdicting the Director of Settlements, 1st respondent in the writ petition, from proceeding with the matter.

( 2 ) MR. M. R K. Chowdary, the learned counsel for the petitioners, made a two fold submission. 1) that the exercise of power by the Director of Settlements after a lapse of 12 years is arbitrary and unreasonable. Even though no period of limitation is prescribed for exercising the suo motu power of revision, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time and not after a long lapse of 12 years. 2) the Director of Settlements took up the suo motu enquiry at the instance of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kakinada who made a false statement in the counter- affidavit in VV. P. No. 14272/85 to the effect that appeals are pending before the director of Settlements. To save him from the situation he requested the Director of settlements to take suo motu action and the Director of Settlements without any application of the mind issued the impugned notices seeking to exercise the power under Section 4 (4) of the Regulation 11 of 1969.

( 3 ) THE question for consideration is whether the 1st respondent-Director of settlements is justified in taking suo motu enquiry in the circumstances of this case. It is true as contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of the revisional power by the Director of Settlements suo motu. It may be mentioned in this context that any party aggrieved by the decision