The Director of Settlements has the power to revise orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer in quasi-judicial proceedings under Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act, and there is no limitation period prescribed for exercising suo motu revisional powers.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother, muktadar, J. dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants questioning the jurisdiction of the Director of Settlements to issue the impugned noticedt. 1-2-1972 in exercise of the revisional powers conferred upon him under Section 5 (2) of the Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

( 2 ) THE two appellants are brothers and they claim that they have been granted ryotwari patta in respect of the lands in question under Sec. II of the Act by the Assistant Settlement Officer. According to them they were inducted into possession of the lands long prior to 1-7-45 and it is on that basis that the Assistant settlement Officer granted them ryotwari patta. It would appear that the appellants had filed an application putting forth their claims in respect of several survey numbers and their claims in respect of two survey numbers was rejected by the assistant Settlement Officer by his orders dt. 20-5-1959 and 24-2-1961. Subsequently again tne appellants made applications in respect of the lands covered by those two survey numbers and they were granted pattas in respect of the lands covered by those two survey numbers and also in respect of the lands in other survey numbers which are now the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the Director of Settlement.

( 3 ) WHAT Mr. Ananta Babu the learned counsel for the appellants contends is that when once patta has been granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section I I of the Act it is not open to the Director of Settlements to interfere with that grant of patta in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 5 (2) of the Act. In other words it is his case that a reading of Sec. 5 (2) as a whole would indicate that the Director of Settlements has not been vested with power to revise the orders made by an Asst. Settlement Officer in Quasi-judicial proceedings and that his power is restricted only to revise or cancel the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer in so far as they relate to the administrative or executive functions of the Assis tant Settlement Officer. It is alsohis case that even assuming that the Director of settlements is vested with such revisional jurisdiction to revise the orders of a quasi judicial authority like the Assistant settlement Officer he will have no jurisdiction to exercise that power having dismissed an application filed by respondents 2 and 3 seeking revision of the orders of the Assistant Settlement officer granting pattas to the appellants as time barred. Mr. Ananta Babu also contended that in as much as the Director of settlements had dismissed the revision petition filed by respondents 2 and 3 that order merged with the order of the assistant Settlements Officer, and therefore he cannot exercise the same jurisdiction merely because he is vested with suo motu powers of revision.

( 4 ) WE may in the first instance notice what section 5 (2) says:"every Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the Director and 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 hose in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. "

( 5 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Ananta Babu the revislonal power is confirmed only to lawful instructions which the Director of settlements is empowered to issue to a settlement Officer and does not cover orders of the Settlement Officer granting patta in a quasi judicial proceeding under section I I of the Act. He seeks to draw support from Section 7 (c) under which the Board of Revenue is vested with re-visional powers. The distinct/on according to him, is this. If the Legislature intended to confer the same revisional jurisdiction, as it conferred upon the board of Ravenue under section 7 (c ). viz. , to can