JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - Collector, Kalahandi has moved this petition under Section 59 (2) of the O.L.R. Act. The facts of the case are as follows:- Revenue Officer, Jaipatha disposed of ceiling case No. 155/74 on 15-5-1975. Collector made this reference in September, 1982 on the ground that there is no mention of local enquiry. There is overwriting of figure 5 as 8 subsequently in a different ink in the statement recorded by the Revision Officer which has not been attested. There is a gift of 9.98 acres to Prakash Chandra Panda and Kishore Ch Panda. This has been excluded by the Revenue Officer. 2. According to Addl. Standing Counsel all gift deeds are compulsorily registrable. The total area belonging to the land-holder is 95.20 acres. He has some more lands in other villages which have not been taken into account. Even if his sons are major, married and separated, there is still surplus land in this case. Additional Standing Counsel pleads that this case should be remanded to Revenue Officer for fresh enquiry. 3. Shri A.B Misra, Lawyer for O.P. argues that Collector has made this reference six years after the order of the Revenue Officer. The limitation is 90 days for any revision. Board of Revenue Regulation also provides for 90 days limitation. Section 59(2) was introduced in 1976. Under the old Act, before 1976, Section 59 provides for revision by the Collector. As this case was started in 1974, Collector alone is the competent authority to hear such revisions. This power of revision is vested in the parties from the date the action was started. Section 59(2) can have only prospective effect had not retrospective effect. 4. Shri A.B. Misra relies on Vol. IV (1953) Sales Tax Cases 114, Vol. X (1959) Sales Tax Cases 162 Andhra Pradesh and Vol. X (1959) Sales Tax Case 117 Madras wherein it has been held that the remedy for revision is a right vested in the party on the date the case was initiated and any amendment to limitation will have no retrospective effect. 5. Shri Misra further argues that there is no distinction between suo motu and other revisions as for as limitation is concerned. He further says that the words "at any time" must be interpreted to mean any reasonable time. Further he says that 6 months or one year will be reasonable. 5. Shri Misra further argues that there is no distinction between suo motu and other revisions as for as limitation is concerned. He further says that the words "at any time" must be interpreted to mean any reasonable time. Further he says that 6 months or one year will be reasonable. He relies on AIR 1974 S.C. page 2271 in respect of limitation on writ jurisdiction of High Court. He further argues that there is no explanation for delay in this case for six years. The discretion must be exercised judicially otherwise Administrative latchas will be encouraged. 6. He pleads that the petitioner has two sons and they are major, married and partitioned. But there is no partition deed. Oral partition is adequate for Hindu Undivided Family. The number 5 has been over-written as 8 in the statement which has not been initialled by the Revenue Officer. He says that this was a case which cannot be treated as having no evidence. 7. Addl. Standing Counsel argues that mistakes creep in large number of O.L.R cases in view of the complicated nature of the law and that is why Section 59(2) was inserted and this benefits not only the general public but also the parties. It is for the Court to be satisfied whether the delay is reasonable or not. 8. Shri Misra rebuts that two Pandas who got gift deeds have already perfected their adverse title and they are not parties to this case. 9. I have expressed my views about Section 59(2) in O.L.R. Revision 89/82. I do not agree with Shri A.B. Mishra that Section 59(2) is not retrospective and is prospective and that it has limitation of 60 days or that Board of Revenue Regulation applies to it. Suo motu revision cannot be compared with the ordinary revision. Ordinary revision may be a right vested with the party. But suo motu revision has no such right vested in the party. It is for the Collector or the Land Reforms Commissioner to be satisfied about the mistakes committed in the lower courts and to more under section 59(2). Imposing the limitation of 60 days is not desirable. That is why Legislature has declared that 'at any time' this suo motu revision can be undertaken. It is for the Collector or the Land Reforms Commissioner to be satisfied about the mistakes committed in the lower courts and to more under section 59(2). Imposing the limitation of 60 days is not desirable. That is why Legislature has declared that 'at any time' this suo motu revision can be undertaken. Of course the Court is to consider whether too long a period has elapsed resulting in various changes in the ownership of disputed lands. But this does not deprive the Court of this power to use Section 59(2) where it is considered necessary. 10. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, it has been brought to my notice that the land-holder has 95.20 acres of land in this village and some more lands in other villages which have not been taken into account by the Revenue Officer. Even assuming his sons are major, married and separated, there is still surplus lands in this case. Any deed of gift after 1970 is void under the O.L.R. Act. Whether adverse right has been created or not is a matter to be decided afresh by the Revenue Officer. We may not have a partition deed in cases of Hindu Undivided Family but gift deed needs to be registered. 11. On all these arguments, the case is remanded to the Revenue Officer for fresh enquiry taking into account the lands in other villages and the question of validity of the unregistered gift deed and adverse title, if any, perfected by the grantees in this case. Revenue Officer's order dated 15-5-1976 is set aside and the case is remanded to Revenue Officer for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law. 12. Reference accepted.