ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition is arising out of order dated 07.08.2004 passed by respondent No.5/Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, in a revision filed by the petitioners under Section 15(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Lands Regulation, 1358-Fasli.

2. The petitioners have preferred the aforesaid revision for correction of revenue entries in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 onwards stating that the names of the respondents were wrongly recorded. However, the revision was preferred after a delay of 43 years.

3. The respondents before the Joint Collector came up with a categoric case that they have submitted an application under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358-F; as they were in possession of the land, their names were mutated in the revenue records; and since 1952-53 till date, they have been in possession of the land as protected tenants. The Joint Collector has dismissed the revision as it was preferred after a lapse of 43 years.

4. The petitioners have not been able to make out a case of fraud for condoning the huge delay of 43 years in preferring the revision. The petitioners want the revenue entries of 1954-55 to be corrected in the year 2022.

5. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another v. D. Narsing Rao and others, (2015) 3 SCC 695, held that the revenue entries cannot be corrected after such an inordinate delay. Even though there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of any power, revision or otherwise, such power should be exercised within a reasonable period. Paragraphs 25 and 31 of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under :

“25. The legal position is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court which have laid down that even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. This is so even in cases where allegations of fraud have necessitated the exercise of any corrective power. We may briefly refer to some of the decisions only to bring home the point that the absence of a stipulated period of limitation makes little or no difference insofar as the exercise of power is concerned which ought to be permissible only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period.

…

31. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of thirty-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamout to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.

6. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the revisional authority was certainly justified in dismissing the revision, which was preferred by the petitioners after a delay of 43 years. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the matter on the ground of delay and laches.

7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. No costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.