9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Director of Settlements could exercise his suo motu power of revision after dismissing a time-barred revision petition filed by the Tahsildar. 2. Whether the invocation of suo motu power of revision after a lapse of 1320 days was reasonable. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Exercise of Suo Motu Power of Revision by the Director of Settlements The respondents argued that the Director of Settlements could not exercise his power of revision again after dismissing the revision petition filed by the Tahsildar on grounds of delay on 27th Jan. 1971. The learned single Judge initially agreed, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Mela Ram & Sons v. Commr. of Income Tax and Shanker v. Krishnaji, concluding that the Director became functus officio after the initial dismissal. However, the appellate court highlighted a direct Bench decision in C. Venkata Reddy v. Director of Survey, which was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. This decision held that dismissing a time-barred revision petition did not preclude the Director from exercising suo motu powers later, as the initial dismissal did not constitute a decision on merits. The appellate court agreed with this precedent, stating that the Director had not exercised his revisional power on merits when dismissing the Tahsildar's petition and thus remained competent to invoke suo motu powers. Issue 2: Reasonableness of the Delay in Exercising Suo Motu Power The second issue pertained to whether the Director's invocation of suo motu power after 1320 days was reasonable. The learned single Judge did not address this issue, but the appellate court emphasized that even though no specific period of limitation is prescribed for exercising suo motu powers, it must be done within a reasonable time. The court referred to the decision in Kodanda Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Gujarat v. P. Raghav, establishing that the reasonableness of the time taken must be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court concluded that this issue should be decided by the appropriate authority, suggesting that the writ petitioners could file a revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who would consider the reasonableness of the delay along with other pertinent factors. Conclusion: The appellate court allowed the appeal, overturning the learned single Judge's decision. It directed that if the writ petitioners file a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Revenue within two months, it should be entertained and disposed of on merits, allowing the petitioners to raise all relevant legal questions, including the reasonableness of the Director's delay in exercising suo motu powers. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
|
