Exercise of suo motu powers after a decade cannot be held within reasonable time.

1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent authority made in his D.Dis.No.K.P.P.No.4/90, dated 28.6.1990 and quash the same.

2. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the lands in Ayanavaram village comprised in T.S.Nos.12 and 27. The case of the petitioners is that their mother purchased the property in question under 4 different sale deeds all before the year 1948 i.e., before the Act XXVI of 1948 came into force. However, there were rival claimants by M/s.Chandrasekaran and Jegathambal who also applied for a patta in respect of the lands in question. It is also the case of the petitioners that during the final settlement enquiry in Ayanavaram village in respect of T.S.Nos.12 and 27 and other survey numbers, the claim of the petitioners was rejected and an extent of 0.62 cents was held to be as water spread poromboke. It is also their case that their mother Chinnammal filed a revision petition under Sec.5(2) of Act XXVI of 1948 claiming patta for the lands in T.S.Nos.12 and 27 of Block No.II, Ayanavaram village by enclosing the S.L.R. extract and certified copy of the final settlement enquiry Tahsildars order No.1002/59 dated 5.10.1959. By order dated 26.8.1966, the director of Survey and Settlement, Madras, has set aside the final settlement enquiry order in respect of the lands in question and remanded the case to the Assistant settlement officer for detailed enquiry and disposal, who passed orders dated 30.9.1971 granting patta in favour of the writ petitioners for 80 cents in S.No.12-A and 60 cents in T.S.No.27, Block No.2, Against this order, One Ansammal filed a revision petition which was also rejected by orders dated 10.9.1981 by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration in R.P.No.7 of 1979.

3. At this stage, it is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the chronological events of the case which has become a part of the record. It has been stated therein that while dismissing the revision, the Special Commissioner has made an observation that grant of patta to the respondents (writ petitioners) would be examined separately under the suo motu powers under Sec.7 of the Act. Accordingly, on 29.9.1981, a show cause notice was issued under the powers vested under Sec.7(c) of the Act to show cause why the patta issued to them by the Assistant settlement officer dated 30.9.1971 should not be cancelled.

4. Against the order of rejection, the said Ansammal filed W.P.No.282 of 1982 in this Court. By order dated 1.3.1990, this Court remanded the said Revision Petition No.7 of 1979 to the first respondent to rehear and dispose of the matter on merits, who by his order dated 28.6.1990 disposed of the revision petition rejecting the claim of the said Ansammal. It was stated therein that the said Ansammal cannot claim patta under Sec.11(4) based on an order of bare injunction and that she did not produce any receipts for payment of F.C.R. or old patta or any other valid documents to prove her possession before the notified date viz., 1.10.1951. At the same time, the petitioners claim was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first respondent without properly appreciating the facts and law cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioners. He has further argued that the second respondent has issued the patta to the petitioners herein only after due enquiry and therefore, it is not proper to cancel the pattas. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the first respondent authority while rejecting the claim of the said Ansammal over the disputed land ought to have confirmed the order of the second respondent granting pattas in favour of the petitioners; that the first respondent has no power to invoke the suo motu powers under Sec.7 nearly after a period of ten years. The firs