ORDER S. Swamikkannu, J. 1. The petitioner herein has prayed for the issue of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Revisional Authority and the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur relating to Proceedings R.P. No. 64/78 J-2 dated 29.12.1980 and for quashing the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. It is Inter Alia stated in the affidavit sworn to by one of the petitioners herein with an extent of 36 acres 72 cents of wet lands among others, situate in the village of Kilaiyur, Nagapattinam taluk, Thanjavur District to 12 persons. The petitioners have been cultivating the said lands as cultivating tenants under the landlords from about the year 1962. Before that the lands were under pannai cultivation of the landlord. After the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, the landlord leased the said lands to the petitioners and similar lands to other cultivating tenants. The petitioners had been cultivating the lands with utmost diligence by contributing their own physical labour and that of the members of their respective family in the cultivation of the said land. They have also effected the necessary improvements from time to time. They have been delivering the rents regularly to the Trust. Neither the petitioners nor any member of their family own or cultivate any other land. They have been depending upon the aforesaid lands only for their livelihood. 3. While so, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969, was enacted to provide for the preparation and maintenance of the Record of Tenancy Rights in respect of Agricultural lands in the State. The Act Inter Alia provides for preparation of the record by the Record Officer containing the Survey number, extent, name of the land owner and name of the cultivating tenant and other particulars. After due enquiry under the provisions of the said Act, the Special Tahsildar (R.T.R.), Nagapattinam passed orders on 21.2.1971 recording the petitioners as the cultivating tenants in respect of the aforesaid extent of lands. The Record Officer published a notice in the village informing the public about the preparation of the Record of Tenancy. Subsequently there was an enquiry in the village chavadi in the presence of the Public Village Officers. Representative of land-owner and cultivating tenants and others. The Record Officer published a notice in the village informing the public about the preparation of the Record of Tenancy. Subsequently there was an enquiry in the village chavadi in the presence of the Public Village Officers. Representative of land-owner and cultivating tenants and others. After an elaborate enquiry the Special Tahsildar (R.T.R.) recorded the petitioners as cultivating tenants in respect of the lands. Neither the land-owner nor any other person raised any objection or preferred an appeal. In the circumstances the record made already had become final. Under Section 15 of the Act, there is a presumption of, the correctness of the entries and under Section 16(a) of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the matters covered by the Act is barred. The petitioners have been carrying on the cultivation work as cultivating tenants, without any interference or obstruction from anyone and paying the rent to the landlord-trust regularly. While so, the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation and Ceiling on Lands) Act, 1961, which was enacted to provide for the fixation of ceiling on agricultural lands only, originally contained provisions under which the Trust-lands were exempted from the application of this Act. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Act 37 of 1972 sought to amend the said Act, in and by which the exemption granted to the Trust was taken away. Thereafter the authorities under the Land Reforms Act, after due enquiry under the said Act considered the holding of the abovesaid Trust and as per G.O. 1767 Revenue dated 6.8.1975 declared an extent of 54.65 of lands from the holdings of the said Trust, as surplus. Even before that the Authorised Officer under the said Act issued a notice in Form No. VI dated 19.5.73 declaring the lands as surplus. Since the surplus lands vested with the Government, the Government recognised the petitioners as the cultivating tenants of the aforesaid land and the tenancy was continued for the years 1974-75; 1975-76 and 1976-77. The rent was paid to the Government without any default. The petitioners continued to be the cultivating tenants of the aforesaid lands even after the said lands were declared as surplus and taken over by the Government. 4. Section 94 of the Act enables the Government to make Rules for the purpose. In pursuance thereof the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Disposal of Surplus Lands Rules have been framed by the Government. 4. Section 94 of the Act enables the Government to make Rules for the purpose. In pursuance thereof the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Disposal of Surplus Lands Rules have been framed by the Government. The rules in extenso provides for the persons who are eligible for assignment of the surplus land, the value to be fixed, procedure to be followed, for receipt and disposal of applications, conditions for assignment, appeals and revisions-against the orders of assignment and all other matters relating thereto. 5. An extent of 54.65 acres of land from the holdings of the Kilaiyur Chatram Trust was declared as surplus. The surplus lands were entered in the Form-A Register. Thereafter a public notice in Form No. B inviting applications for assignment was issued and wide publicity was given by affixture in the village chavadi and other public places, by beat of tom tom and affixture of notices in several offices and in the manner provided under Rule 4. In pursuance thereof as many as 604 persons applied for assignment in Form No. C. The Authorised Officer caused public notice in Form No. D dt. 29.10.1975 in the same manner provided under Rule 4 inviting objections if any. The Authorised Officer conducted an enquiry and heard the objections from the objectors on several dates, viz., 16.5.1976, 19.5.1976 and 23.5. 1976 and ultimately in his proceedings dt. 15.4.1977 passed orders and granted assignment of the abovesaid lands to the petitioners. 6. Similarly various items of lands were assigned to other cultivating tenants and other landless persons. Subsequently, notice in Form No. 'E' fixing the value for the abovesaid lands and the amounts payable in easy instalments was also intimated. Thereafter the deed of assignment in Form No. 'F' duly executed by the Authorised Officer, Nagapattinam, Mannargudi, was issued to the petitioners. From that date the petitioners became the absolute owners of the lands assigned in the petitioners' favour. The petitioners have paid three annual instalments so far. The petitioners are the owners and paying the land revenue also to the Government. They have made extensive improvement by their own physical labour and that of the members of their family from their savings and from the loans received from the Government. They have also borrowed loans from Co-operative Bank for purchase of seeds and manures and Government Takkavi Loans by mortgaging and by executing the documents referred to the abovesaid lands. They have made extensive improvement by their own physical labour and that of the members of their family from their savings and from the loans received from the Government. They have also borrowed loans from Co-operative Bank for purchase of seeds and manures and Government Takkavi Loans by mortgaging and by executing the documents referred to the abovesaid lands. The petitioners measured paddy as per levy orders to the Government when it was in force. 7. While so, to their great surprise and disappointment the petitioners received notice from the Respondent, R.P. No. 64/78 J-2, dated 29.12.1978 which stated as follows: The Authorised Officer Land Reforms, Mannargudi, assigned an extent of 36.03 acres of land situated in Keelaiyur village in favour of 14 persons under T.N.L.R. (D & S) Rules, 1965. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam who made confidential enquiries in the matter has reported that entire lands declared as surplus except that the land assigned to Thiruvasudevan and Parthasarathi lyengar of Keelaiyur village, are under the cultivation of Thiru Govindarajulu Naidu, President Panchayat Board, Keelaiyur. He has recommended this case for Suo Motu action by the Revisional Authority under R.T.R. Act. A perusal of the records shows, it is a fit case for Suo Motu revision. Therefore, the case is posted for enquiry at 11 a.m. on 10.1.1979 at Collector's Office Main Buildings, Thanjavur. The respondents should be present for the enquiry without fail. After having received the above notice which is now sought to be quashed, the petitioners submitted their elaborate explanation. Even though a number of hearings were notified, the respondent adjourned the matter and only on 13.9.1979 he commenced hearing. According to the petitioners, these proceedings dated 29.12.1980 and made in R.P. No. 64/78 J-2 by the respondent herein is illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Mr. R.G. Rajan, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the show cause notice dated 29.12.1978 issued by the respondent does not refer to the provisions of the Act under which the notice was issued. However it is presumed that the power was exercised under Section 7 of the Act. It is well established that the revisional jurisdiction of any Revisional Authority is very narrow in compass and can relate only to error in the exercise of its jurisdiction. However it is presumed that the power was exercised under Section 7 of the Act. It is well established that the revisional jurisdiction of any Revisional Authority is very narrow in compass and can relate only to error in the exercise of its jurisdiction. In the instant case, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Record Officer has made an elaborate enquiry and after considering the facts of the case and the objections held that the petitioners and cultivating tenants in respect of the lands and accordingly the same was recorded. There was no appeal by anybody or the revision filed by any person. The Record Officer was within his jurisdiction and passed the order after considering the entire materials before him. There was no error of jurisdiction or even any illegality. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned proceedings of the respondent are without jurisdiction. 9. Mr. R.G. Rajan, learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the order recording the tenancy was made as early 21.2.1971, that the notice for the alleged Suo Motu action was issued on 20.12.1978, that the rules provide that applications for revision should be filed in 90 days and that even for Suo Motu action the same period of limitation should apply in the absence of any specific different period prescribed for the purpose. Therefore according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the impugned proceedings are hopelessly barred by limitation. 10. In the instant case, the order was passed as early as 21.2.1971 and it had become final. To attempt to re-open the matter after lapse of 7 years and 10 months results in undue hardship, huge loss and seeks to interfere with the rights already vested and concluded. It is this aspect that is very much stressed on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. R.G. Rajan, learned Counsel. 11. Mr. R.G. Rajan, further submits that when the Revisional Authority had issued the notice on 29.12.1978, after a lapse of about. 7 years and 10 months after the order dated 21.2.1971, the proceedings are unreasonable illegal and opposed to principle of natural justice. Merely on the ground that no time is fixed for taking Suo Motu action, it does not mean that the authority can exercise it after several years as in the instant case, is the main point that is urged on behalf of the petitioners. 12. Merely on the ground that no time is fixed for taking Suo Motu action, it does not mean that the authority can exercise it after several years as in the instant case, is the main point that is urged on behalf of the petitioners. 12. The point for consideration is whether the order dated 29.12.1978 passed by the Revisional Authority and District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, Suo Motu is legal or not. 13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is Inter Alia stated as follows: 14. Suo Motu revision had been initiated under Section 7 of the Act 10 of 1969 to decide whether the inclusion of the names of the assignees as tenants in the R.T.R. record is maintainable and notices were issued to all the assignees to appear for the said Suo Motu enquiry. 15. Merely on the ground that notices has been sent to the petitioners, can it make the action which is taken after an abnormal period of 7 years and 10 months, after the assignments were made is the matter that has to be examined in the instant case before us. It is stated in the proceedings dated 21.2.1971, the Special Tahsildar (R.T.R.), Nagapattinam, had ordered the inclusion of the name of the first petitioners as cultivating tenant for an extent of 3.69 acres of lands comprised in Rs. No. 269/13, 236/2B etc, of 131, Keelaiyur village after holding enquiry into the matter. During the enquiry held by the Special Tahsildar (R.T.R.), Nagapattinam, the first petitioner herein stated that he cultivated the said lands, belonging too Keelaiyur Chatram as per the oral lease agreement and that he has not obtained any receipt from the Chatram authority for having measured lease paddy during the period when the lands were under his tenancy cultivation. The land owner S.M.R.M.C Thiagaraja Pillai, stated that the first petitioner was a cultivating tenant of the lands and that his name might be ordered to be included in the R.T.R. record. The name of the first petitioner had been entered in the adangal and that therefore his name might be registered as tenant. The same pattern of enquiry had taken place on the I.R. files before the Special Tahsildar (R.T.R.) Nagapattinam. The order was passed by the relevant authority. The persons aggrieved by the order in R.P. 64/78 J-2, dated 29.12.1980, had preferred this writ petition. The same pattern of enquiry had taken place on the I.R. files before the Special Tahsildar (R.T.R.) Nagapattinam. The order was passed by the relevant authority. The persons aggrieved by the order in R.P. 64/78 J-2, dated 29.12.1980, had preferred this writ petition. The writ petitioners herein filed their counter on 20.2.1979 for the said Suo Motu revision and argued their case on 13.3.1979 through their counsel before the Authorities concerned. The petitioners contended before the District Revenue Officer that they ceased to be cultivating tenants under Act 10 of 1969 inasmuch as they had become owners of the suit lands by virtue of the assignment order passed by the Authorised Officer, Mannargudi and that therefore, there is no necessity to take up Suo Motu revision under Section 7 of the Act 10 6f 1969. Section 7 of the R.T.R, Act 10/69 empowers, the Revisional Authority to take up Suo Motu enquiry either of his own motion or on the application of a party and pass such orders as he may think fit. According to the respondent such an enquiry is not barred by limitation. According to the writ petitioners, the assignment once made under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, cannot be modified or cancelled. According to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, the assignment shall be liable to be modified of cancelled if it is found that it was made under a mistake of fact or owing to misrepresentation or fraud or that there was an irregularity in the procedure. The writ petitioners herein were assigned surplus lands on the ground that they were ex-tenants of the suit lands. But there are representations from certain section of the public that the writ petitioners were not at all tenants prior to the taking over of the lands in question by the Government. Therefore the Government has now come forward with the Suo Motu proceedings after the lapse of 7 years and 10 months from the date of the order of assignment on 21.2.1971. The proceedings that is now sought to be quashed is dated 29.12.1978. 16. Therefore the Government has now come forward with the Suo Motu proceedings after the lapse of 7 years and 10 months from the date of the order of assignment on 21.2.1971. The proceedings that is now sought to be quashed is dated 29.12.1978. 16. The point that arises for consideration is whether there can be such for consideration is whether there can be such a long lapse of time in between the date of issue of the assignment and the date of reopening of the assignment, especially when the Rules made under Section 7 of the Act contemplates only 90 days for preferring revision by an individual who is aggrieved by the appellate Order. 17. In the instant case, it is common ground that no appeal had been preferred. But it is the authorities, namely the respondents herein who had taken Suo Motu proceedings under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act after the lapse of 7 years and 10 months after the order of assignment made on 21.2.1971. This Court does not venture to say that it is only within 90 days from the date of assignment, that the Suo Motu action has to be taken. But this Court is of the opinion that within a reasonable time the authorities have to take Suo Motu action. Though the assignment does not confer the power of ownership of the lands, yet the question is whether such an assignment can be reopened on the basis of certain allegations by way of complaints made by the third parties, by the authorities. This aspect has to be examined on the basis of the facts disclosed in the case. We have already stated the facts in extenso. Therefore there is no question of any repetition of those facts once-again for the sake of coming to a conclusion regarding the reasonableness or otherwise of the present Suo Motu action purported to have been initiated under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. No appellate authority had been approached by any of the parties. Taking an action after the lapse of 7 years and 10 months is unreasonable and illegal. Therefore the proceedings have to be struck down as illegal and had in law. Hence the proceedings sought to be quashed are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.