SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.

This intra-Court appeal is focussed against the order dated 24 September 2014 rendered in W.P. No.9004 of 2013. The writ petitioners, feeling dissatisfied, have preferred the instant appeal.

2. To avoid prolixity, the parties are referred to as per their arraignment in the instant appeal.

3.1 Shorn of the minute details, a vignette of the germane and necessary facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal is that Padianallur Village in Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) in January 1951. A ryotwari settlement was introduced in 1953. During such settlement, the lands in S.No.155/2 and 156, which are the petition scheduled lands, were assessed as “Government Poramboke/Assessed Waste Dry”. In 1954, the Government of Madras sanctioned the transfer of land to the extent of 85.94 acres to Overseas Communication Service, Ministry of Communications, Government of India on 29th March, 1954. Subsequent thereto, in 1986, the Government of India transferred the assets and liabilities of Overseas Communication Service to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Thereafter, in 2002, in pursuance of disinvestment policy, VSNL vested with the third respondent, viz., Tata Communications Limited. In October, 2008, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology sent a letter of consent to the Revenue Department for issuance of patta to the third respondent and accordingly, the third respondent was issued with patta in July 2009.

3.2 Albeit, as per the Act, an appeal against the settlement could be filed within 30 days, the limitation period was extended by the Government from time to time. Ultimately, vide G.O. Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 29 June 1987 (for short “G.O.Ms.No.714”) the Government fixed 20 August 1987 as the last date for applying for patta and withdrew the powers of the authorities to condone the delay.

3.3 While so, the appellants, claiming to be the descendants of Solagiri Zamindar of Hosur Taluk, Salem District and that Padianallur Village was earlier part of Zamin estate, addressed a representation to the first respondent to invoke suo motu powers to grant patta in their favour for the lands in question. The said authority, finding that the ryotwari settlement was made way back in 1953 and that the appellants have made their claim nearly after six decades, which could not be considered as a normal delay, rejected the appellants' request for grant of patta, vide letter dated 28 February 2013.

3.4 The appellants assailed the aforestated order / letter passed by the first respondent before the learned Single Judge contending inter alia that the Act does not prescribe any time limit to apply for ryotwari patta and as per the revenue records prior to settlement, the lands in question stood in the name of their predecessors. As such, the first respondent ought not to have rejected their claim, that too, without affording an opportunity of hearing to them. In addition to, seeking quashment of the order of the first respondent, the appellants further sought a direction to the respondents to grant ryotwari patta to them, as per the provisions of the Act, pursuant to their representation dated 23 January 2013.

3.5 The learned Single Judge, finding inter alia that (i) the suo motu power of revision cannot be exercised after an unbearably long period of time, (ii) the rights accrued to third parties over a period of time, cannot be jeopardised by exercise of suo motu power of revision and (iii) the appellants have not proved that they belong to the family of the Zamindar concerned, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal by the writ petitioners.

4.1 Mr. S. Prabakaran, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Board of Revenue, exercising its power under Section 7(c) of the Act, is compet