Judgment : The ancestors or predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, as the case may be, have acquired the entire land in Survey No. l of Oduru Village, Nellore District, admeasuring Acs. 452. 30 cents, through purchases, that took place in the years 1935, 1944 and 1956, from the previous owners. Their rights and title over the land were recognized throughout, and the lands were shown in favour of the petitioners in the declarations filed under the A. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. Consequent upon the enactment of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), pattadar pass books were also issued to the petitioners, sometime in the year 1981. This was followed by issuance of title deeds, under that Act. 2. One of the canals of Telugu Ganga Project is planned to pass through Oduru Village. An extent of Acs. 5. 00 of land in Survey No. l was affected. In the course of determining the method of handing over the Effected lands to the Irrigation Department, the Joint Collector, Nellore, the 3rd respondent herein, felt that no compensation need be paid for the land in Sy. No. l. When petitioners insisted on payment of compensation, he directed the Sub-Collector, Gudur, the 4th respondent, to cancel the pattas of the petitioners over the said land, on the ground that the entire land in Sy. No. l is Inam. The 4th respondent obediently submitted a report, staling that no ryotwari pattas were granted, in favour of the petitioners, in respect of the land in Sy. No. l, under the A. P. (A. A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Inams Act'), and prayed for necessary action. The 2nd respondent initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, and issued notice to the petitioners. 3. The petitioners submitted explanation stating, inter alia, that the land was ever treated or recognized as Inam, and that they are enjoying the property for the last several decades, on the basis of sale deeds. This did not weigh with the 3rd respondent and through his order, dated 3. 1. 2008, he cancelled the pattas of the petitioners. The said order is challenged in these two writ petitions. 4. The petitioners contend that there is nothing on record to disclose that the land in Sy. This did not weigh with the 3rd respondent and through his order, dated 3. 1. 2008, he cancelled the pattas of the petitioners. The said order is challenged in these two writ petitions. 4. The petitioners contend that there is nothing on record to disclose that the land in Sy. No. l was notified under Section 3 of the Inams Act, or that any proceedings were initiated under the said enactment. They contend that, out of utter prejudice against the petitioners, the 3rd respondent had issued the orders, in violation of the relevant provisions of law, and all norms of adjudication. 5. On behalf of respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. Virtually, the contents of the impugned order are reproduced, and it is stated that the land was classified as 'garbhakandrika', which invariably means that, it is Government land. It is stated that the prescribed procedure was strictly followed and the pattas, that were granted to the petitioners, contrary to the provisions of law; were cancelled. 6. Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the land was never notified under Section 3 of the Inams Act, and if there is any violation of the provisions of the same, it is for the authorities constituted under it, to take necessary steps. He contends that the very initiation of the proceedings is untenable, inasmuch as it is the 3rd respondent, who directed the 4th respondent to cancel the pattas, and the latter, in turn, submitted proposals for cancellation of pattas, suo motu. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the classification of the land is clear and unambiguous, and it clearly indicates that it is Government land. It is also stated that every contention, put forward by the petitioners herein, was dealt with, in detail, by the 3rd respondent, and the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 8. A joint inspection of the lands in Oduru Village, for the purpose of fixing the alignment of a branch canal of Telugu Ganga, passing through that village, appears to have been conducted by the Officials of the Revenue and Irrigation Departments. It was necessary to identify the lands that are needed for excavation of canal. 8. A joint inspection of the lands in Oduru Village, for the purpose of fixing the alignment of a branch canal of Telugu Ganga, passing through that village, appears to have been conducted by the Officials of the Revenue and Irrigation Departments. It was necessary to identify the lands that are needed for excavation of canal. In case the lands are owned by private individuals, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were to be initiated, and if the affected land is owned by the Government itself, different procedure was required to be followed. It emerged that the canal was to pass through the land in Sy. No. l, which is very vast in extent. About five acres of land in that survey number was needed for the canal. The revenue records disclosed that the petitioners are, either pattadars or enjoyers of the land in that survey number. The 3rd respondent entertained a doubt, as to the origin of the title of the petitioners, etc. The 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent, to verify the record and submit a report. The latter, in rum, submitted a report dated 16. 11. 2006. He has expressed the view that, at one point of time, the land was classified as a Government land, and the issuance of pattadar pass books to the petitioners and others, does not appear to be proper. Based on this, the 3rd respondent initiated suo motu inquiry against the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioners engaged Advocates and submitted explanation. They have referred to the origin of the title to the land, and mentioned the nature of enjoyment of the rights. This did not weigh with the 3rd respondent, and he passed the impugned order. 9. The petitioners presented a revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad. The same was returned with an observation, that the Commissioner has no power to entertain a revision or review, against an order passed under Section 9 of the Act. Hence, these writ petitions. 10. The respondents 3 and 4 proceeded on the assumption that the lands are covered by the provisions of the Inams Act. Starting from there, they verified as to whether the petitioners were conferred with the ryotwari pattas. On finding that no such pattas were granted, they concluded that the pattadar passbooks issued to the petitioners are illegal and improper. 10. The respondents 3 and 4 proceeded on the assumption that the lands are covered by the provisions of the Inams Act. Starting from there, they verified as to whether the petitioners were conferred with the ryotwari pattas. On finding that no such pattas were granted, they concluded that the pattadar passbooks issued to the petitioners are illegal and improper. The petitioners were treated as encroachers upon the Government land. A further observation was made to the effect that any length of adverse possession over Government land cannot lead to title or issuance of passbooks. 11. The very approach of the 3rd respondent was untenable and contrary to law. In case, the land was covered by the Inams Act, it was for the authorities, under that enactment, to take various steps. It is only when a land is notified, under the provisions of the Inams Act, that the consequences provided therein would ensue. Detailed adjudication, at various levels, is provided for. Such of the land, as is covered by the Inams Act, in respect of which ryotwari pattas are not granted; would vest in the Government, by operation of the relevant notifications. Not a single notification under the Act was referred to, under the impugned proceedings. The respondents 3 and 4 do not figure anywhere in the scheme of adjudication of claims, under that enactment. Here itself, it is necessary to mention that even a notification, bringing the lands in an area under the purview of the Inams Act is liable to be challenged by the affected persons. The respondents are not even sure as to whether the land of the petitioners was notified at all. Therefore, the very basis of their proceedings is shaky and defective. 12. Suo motu powers are conferred on certain authorities, to enable them to verify whether any serious defect has crept in to the proceedings, under the relevant enactments. Time and again, this Court held that suo motu powers have to be exercised within a reasonable time, and rights and obligations, which have crystallized over a long period of time, cannot be unsettled by having recourse to suo motu powers. 13. Issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, under the Act, is nothing but an act of recognition of existing rights. No fresh rights are conferred on any individual by issuing them. 13. Issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, under the Act, is nothing but an act of recognition of existing rights. No fresh rights are conferred on any individual by issuing them. A pattadar passbook can be set aside, either in the proceedings initiated at the instance of an aggrieved party, or in exercise of suo motu powers, when the very basis for initiation of such proceedings is proved to be defective. 14. In the instant case, it was not even pointed out that the petitioners did not possess the corresponding rights, before they were issued the pattadar passbooks. Further, it was more than a decade ago, that the passbooks were issued, and few decades earlier thereto, the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title have acquired rights, vis-a-vis the land. The rights, which have such a solid legal and factual foundation, cannot be the subject-matter of a whimsical exercise of power, by the 3rd respondent. 15. The way in which the 3rd respondent exercised the suo motu powers, is not only defective, but is also objectionable. In case, he intended to invoke powers under Section 9 of the Act, it was always open to him to issue a notice to the affected parties, indicating the basis therefor. The 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent to inquire into the matter and submit a report. The latter, in turn, submitted a report, on 16. 11. 2006. That report was treated as the basis for exercise of suo motu powers. It is an instance of misuse of statutory provisions. The 3rd respondent has treated Section 9 of the Act, as a platform, to translate his personal opinions and dislikes into reality. The allegations of the petitioners that the officer, holding the post of Joint Collector, had thrown an open challenge, that he would ensure that no compensation would be paid to the petitioners; gains acceptability. Viewed from any angle, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. 16. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is directed that the lands of the petitioners in Sy. No. l, cannot be utilized for any public purpose, unless and until they are acquired in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. 17. There shall be no order as to costs.