ORDER The petitioner challenges the order, dated 26.09.1989, passed by 2nd respondent and the one dated, 14.11.1995, through which the 1st respondent affirmed the same. The petitioner is a resident of Bhadrachalam Village, which was part of an estate. The predecessors in title of the petitioner were holding the lands in Survey No.95/3 and various sub-divisions of Survey Nos.122 and 123 of Bhadrachalam, admeasuring about 7.27 hectares. Consequent upon the abolition of estates and enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement Regulation 2 of 1970 (for short 'the Regulation'), the petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Officer, 3rd respondent herein, as provided for under Section 9 of the Regulation. Through order, dated 11.07.1979, the 3rd respondent granted patta in respect of 5.66 hectares of land in Survey No.95/3 and 122/2 & 4. However, he rejected the application, insofar as it related to an extent of 1.61 hectares in Survey Nos.122/3 ad 123/2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements, second respondent herein, insofar as the patta in respect of 1.61 hectares was rejected. Through his orders, dated 15.03.1983, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. On such remand, the 3rd respondent upheld the order, dated 09.09.1983, granting patta in respect of 1.66 hectares. The 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 16.05.1988, in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision under Section 4(3) of the Regulation, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the pattas granted in respect of both the extents referred to above, shall not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation, raising factual and legal grounds. Through his order, dated 26.09.1989, the 2nd respondent cancelled the pattas granted to the petitioner, in respect of the entire extent of 7.27 hectares. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The order of the 2nd respondent, insofar as it has cancelled patta over an extent of 5.66 hectares, was set aside and the matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. The appeal as regards balance was rejected. Hence, this Writ Petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The order of the 2nd respondent, insofar as it has cancelled patta over an extent of 5.66 hectares, was set aside and the matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. The appeal as regards balance was rejected. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri P.Satyaraja Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not at all competent for the 2nd respondent to exercise suo motu powers of revision, once the proceedings were subject matter of an appeal before him under Section 9 of the Regulation. He contends that the suo motu power was misused by the 2nd respondent, and that the same is evident from the record. He further submits that the proceedings were initiated by the 2nd respondent, on the basis of a complaint said to have been made by one Mr.G.Sunder Rao and the copy of the same was not made available to his client. He contends that totally different reasons altogether were weighed with the 2nd respondent, during the course of proceedings. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the powers under Section 4 of the Regulation are not restricted to any particular category of proceedings and that no exception can be taken to the impugned orders. He further contends that the petitioner was given ample opportunity and the matter was examined in detail with reference to the record. The facts, that gave raise to the filing of the writ petition, have already been stated in the preceding paragraphs. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether exercise of suo motu powers of revision by the 2nd respondent was proper and legal, in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not uncommon that suo motu powers of revision or appeal are conferred upon superior authorities, in the hierarchy. In comparison to exercise of power of revision, at the instance of an aggrieved party, exercise of the same suo motu stands on a different footing. It cannot be resorted to, as a matter of course. Strong and valid grounds must exist for exercise thereof. The time, at which they are invoked, would also become relevant. In comparison to exercise of power of revision, at the instance of an aggrieved party, exercise of the same suo motu stands on a different footing. It cannot be resorted to, as a matter of course. Strong and valid grounds must exist for exercise thereof. The time, at which they are invoked, would also become relevant. It has been held by this Court repeatedly that suo motu power of revision, even where it is otherwise permissible, must be exercised within a reasonable time and 3 to 5 years was considered to be reasonable. The scheme of remedies provided for under the Regulation is somewhat typical. Section 4 of the Regulation not only stipulated the various authorities that are to function but also delineated their powers in general terms. The Settlement Officer is recognized as the primary authority and the Director of Settlements, as his immediate superior. Their powers or functions are mentioned as under: "4.Settlement Officer:- (1). As soon as may be after the making of this Regulation, the Government shall appoint one or more Settlement Officers to carry out the functions and duties assigned to them under this Regulation. (2). The Settlement Officer shall be subordinate to the Director and shall be guided by such lawful instructions as may be issued from time to time, by the respective immediate superior authority or other higher authority. (3). The Director shall have power either suo motu or on application to revise or cancel any of the orders, decisions or proceedings of the Settlement Officer. Provided that the Director shall not pass any order adversely affecting any party unless such party has had an opportunity of making a representation." Section 9 of the Regulation, on the other hand, exclusively dealt with the grant of pattas. The Settlement Officer is conferred with the power to grant pattas either suo motu or on an application made by a person, duly following the prescribed procedure. Appeal against an order of Settlement Officer is provided for under sub-section (3) to the Director of Settlements and a further appeal to the Board of Revenue. It is relevant to extract Section 9 of the Regulation, in this regard. "9. Appeal against an order of Settlement Officer is provided for under sub-section (3) to the Director of Settlements and a further appeal to the Board of Revenue. It is relevant to extract Section 9 of the Regulation, in this regard. "9. Grant of Pattas:- (1) The Settlement Officer shall inquire into the nature and history of all lands in respect of which ryotwari patta is claimed under section 7 and decide in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed and the persons who are entitled to ryotwari patta: Provided that the claim for a ryotwari patta is not void under any other law applicable to the Scheduled Areas. (2) The Settlement Officer may suo-motu and shall on an application made by a person, after serving a notice in the prescribed manner on all the persons interested in the grant of ryotwari patta and after giving them an opportunity of making representation and after examining all the relevant records in this behalf, pass an order either granting the ryotwari patta to the ryot in respect of the lands concerned or refusing to grant such patta. (3) An appeal shall lie to the Director against the decision of the Settlement Officer and to the Board of Revenue against the decision of the Director within sixty days from the date of communication of the order or decision appealed against an the decision of the Board of Revenue shall be final ad shall not be questioned in any court of law. " A comparison of Sections 4 and 9 of the Regulation makes it clear that the nature of remedies provided for under Section 4 is general in nature, whereas the one under Section 9 is specific to the grant of pattas. While under Section 4, suo motu powers of revision are conferred on the Director of Settlements; his powers are restricted to that of an appellate authority, pure and simple, under Section 9 of the Regulation. It is only the Settlement Officer, that is conferred with the suo motu powers under Section 9 of the Regulation. It is settled principle of law that whenever a matter is governed by a specific provision, the parameters or consequences provided for under a general provision, do not apply for it. It is only the Settlement Officer, that is conferred with the suo motu powers under Section 9 of the Regulation. It is settled principle of law that whenever a matter is governed by a specific provision, the parameters or consequences provided for under a general provision, do not apply for it. It is not in dispute that the entire subject matter of the present proceedings is only grant of pattas, which is squarely governed by Section 9 of the Act. Viewed from this angle, there was no basis for the Settlement Officer to invoke Section 4(3) of the Regulation. The application presented by the petitioner for grant of patta resulted in a positive relief to an extent of 5.66 hectares and rejection as regards an extent of 1.61 hectares. The reason for rejection of relief for this extent was that the land was covered by hillocks and houses. The petitioner pleaded that the entries in the revenue records continued to show that the land is being put to agricultural use and the mere fact that one or two houses have come in the area cannot defeat his rights. He filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The grounds pleaded by the petitioner weighed with the 2nd respondent and he remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent. The latter, in turn, examined the matter in detail, after issuing notices to the concerned parties and granted patta through his proceedings, dated 09.09.1983. Once the proceedings relating to grant of patta in favour of the petitioner were the subject matter of appeal, before the 2nd respondent, under Section 9(3) of the Regulation, there did not exist any basis for him to exercise suo motu powers of revision under Section 4(3) of the Regulation. Further, it was not even alleged that the petitioner had suppressed any material facts either before the 3rd respondent or before the 2nd respondent, at any stage of the proceedings. For the reasons best known to him, the 2nd respondent had entertained suo motu revision and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 16.05.1988. Though no reference is made to any complaint, a perusal of the notice discloses that a copy thereof was marked to one Sri G.Sunder Rao, President of Koyasevak Sangh, Bhadrachalam. For the reasons best known to him, the 2nd respondent had entertained suo motu revision and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 16.05.1988. Though no reference is made to any complaint, a perusal of the notice discloses that a copy thereof was marked to one Sri G.Sunder Rao, President of Koyasevak Sangh, Bhadrachalam. A copy of the complaint said to have been received from Mr.Sunder Rao was not made available to the petitioner, nor Mr.Sunder Rao was made a party to the proceedings, that ensued as a sequel to the show cause notice. The patta granted way back in the year 1979 was reopened, almost after a decade. A perusal of the order, dated 26.09.1989 passed by the 2nd respondent discloses that the reasons that prompted him to exercise suo motu powers of revision were different from those stated in the show cause notice. In para (6) of the order, it was observed as under: "In the Memo, filed by the M.R.O., Bhadrachalam, through Special Asst. Govt. Pleader, Bhadrachalam, it was stated that the Govt. want to take the schedule land for the Vayudut Service which is one of National Importance and that if no appeal is pending, the Govt. want to take the lands as per law and that no Govt. interests are involved over the schedule lands does not serve any purpose for the disposal of the appeal and they are quite contradictory. The Govt. can always take this land as per law even if an appeal is pending in this court as the status of this land is now is Govt. land in view of the suspension of patta granted by the Sett. Officer in this court order, dt.10-5-88." The very fact that the 2nd respondent straight away suspended the patta granted in favour of the petitioner on 11.07.1979 itself discloses not only lack of bona fides in the matter, but also, the high handed and arbitrary action of the 2nd respondent. It is rather unfortunate that the 1st respondent simply put a seal approval on the part of the 2nd respondent and a relief, which was in the nature of eyewash, was granted to the petitioner. The whole exercise smacks of arbitrariness and gross misuse of the powers conferred on the 2nd respondent. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed, as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.