MIRZA MUZAMDAR HUSSAIN Vs. D BHASKARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition and quashing of the order of the Director of Settlements dated 2-1-78 in R.P. No. 65/71.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this case are the SettlementOfficer, Nellore, granted pattasin respect of certain lands under Sec. 11 of the Estates abolition Act XXVI of 1948 by his order dated 10th June, 1970 in favour of the respondents. The Tahsildar, Nellore, filled a revision against the said orders of the Settlement Officer before the Director of Settlements. But since the said revision was filed beyond the prescribed period, it was accompanied by an application to condone the delay in filing the said revision. The Director ol Settlements by his order dated 27th January, 1971 dismissed the application for condoing the delay and consequently dismissed the revision as well. Thereafter certain information was brought to the notice oi the Director by the Mutawalli of a registered Wakf known as "Ashoorkhana Hussaini Kiledar", on the basis of which the Director issued a notice on22-1-74 calling upon the respondents to show-cause why the orders ot the Settlement Officer dated 10th June, 1970, be not revised for the reasons stated in the said notice. This notice was issued in exercise of his suo motu power of revision. The respondents showed cause and after hearing them, the Director ol Settlements passed orders on 2nd January,1978, allowing the revision and quashing the orders of the Settlement Officer granting patta. Thereupon, the respondents filed W P. No. 2328/78 in this Court which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge under the order impugned in this writ appeal.

(3.) Two grounds were urged by the respondents-writ petitioners beforethe learned Single Judge, namely, (1) that inasmuch as the Director has already exercised his power of revision once while dismissing the revision petition filed by the Tahsildar on 27th January, 1971, he cannot exercise the very same power of revision over again, and (2) that the invocation of the suo motu power of revision after a lapse of 1320 days is unreasonable. The final orders by the Director of Set tlement were passed 2, 761 days after the order of the Settlement Officer and interfering at such a distance of time was equally unreasonable.