http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KALLETI CHENGAIAH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)    75        1996 SCALE  (3)29

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated July 28, 1993 made in Writ Appeal No.752/92. The Director of Settlement by  his order  dated October  25, 1990  suo  motu exercised power  under Section  5(2) of  the Andhra  Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (26  of 1948)  (for short,  the ’Act’) and set aside the order of  the Settlement  Officer  dated  February  7,  1983 granting ryotwari  patta under  Section 11(a)  of the Act to the respondent.  When that  order was  challenged by  way of writ petition,  the learned single Judge set aside the order holding that  the exercise  of the power after long lapse of time was  arbitrary; there  was no material produced to show circumstances under which the power came to be exercised and that, under those circumstances, the order setting aside the grant of ryotwari patta is illegal.      It is  seen that Section 5(2) of the Act gives power as under:      "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 those in respect      of which  an  appeal  lies  to  the      Tribunal."      It is  settled law  that the power of suo motu revision can be  exercised within  reasonable time.  When it  is held that the  power may  be exercised  from time  to time,  what would be  the reasonable  time depends  upon facts  of  each case. It is seen that in this case the orders were issued by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the Settlement Officer contrary to the provisions and it was not known  till an  enquiry was  held and  until it  came to light that  the exercise  of power by the Settlement Officer under Section 11 (a) of the Act was clearly in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Under those circumstances, the Director was  constrained to  exercise the power. It is also seen that  when the  record was  called for it came to light that the  record was destroyed. It would be obvious that the persons behind  the scheme  had  managed  to  see  that  the records were destroyed. Considered from this perspective, we are of  the view that the High Court was clearly in error in interfering with the order of the Director of Settlement.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  orders af the single Judge  and the  Division Bench are set aside and that of the Director of Settlement stands restored. No costs.