ORDER The petitioners in both the writ petitions have assailed the order dated 20-12-2006 of respondent No.1-Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy, cancelling the pattas in respect of the lands assigned to each of them. Since both the writ petitions involve identical facts and questions of law, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: W.P.No. 749 of 2007 has been filed by Smt. Mujeebunissa Begum, W/o. Late Syed Abdul Khadeer. Her father-in-law Syed Wajid, S/o. Ahmed, being the assignee of land, was her predecessor-in-title. The then Tahsildar, Medak Taluk assigned patta vide Patta Certificate dated 31-5-1978 under the Laoni Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No. 1406, dated 26-7-1958 read with G.O.Ms. No.1724, dated 26-8-1959 (in brief, 'Rules') in respect of an extent of Ac. 4.00 guntas of land in survey No. 409 of Zapti Shivanoor Village in favour of Syed Wajid, S/o Ahmed. As per the assignment conditions, the lands were heritable, but not alienable and that the lands should be brought under direct cultivation within three years from the date of assignment and should not be leased out in any manner. The cultivation should be carried out by the assignee or members of his family with hired labour under the supervision of the assignee himself or the members of his family. 3. Similarly, the petitioners (4 in number) in W.P.No. 750 of 2007 were also assigned pattas. Petitioner No.1 was assigned Ac. 4-00 guntas and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were assigned Ac. 3-02, 3-03 and 3-00 guntas of land, respectively in survey No. 409 of Zapti Shivanoor Village. Petitioner No.1 was assigned by proceedings No.B4/5623/82, dated 26-8-1989, petitioner No.2 was assigned by proceedings No.B/622/1990, dated 1-5-1990 and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were assigned by separate proceedings No.B/622/1990, dated 1-5-1990. These assignments were also made on the same conditions viz., the lands were only heritable, but not alienable and should be brought under the cultivation within 3 years from the date of the assignment and should not be leased out in any manner. The lands should be cultivated by the assignee or the members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of the assignee himself or the members of his family. 4. The lands should be cultivated by the assignee or the members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of the assignee himself or the members of his family. 4. A show cause notice No.E2/2136/2001, dated 10-5-2001 was issued by respondent No.1-Joint Collector, Medak District, to the writ petitioners proposing to cancel the said assignments of pattas in the purported exercise of the powers under Section 166-B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli un the following grounds: (i) the father of the assignees Sri Ghousuddin was a Government servant working in the Revenue Department at the time of assignment; (ii) the assignees would not come within the definition of landless poor persons; (iii) lands were not cultivated personally; and (iv) the father of the assignees Sri Ghousuddin held that General Power of Attorney and the assignees are in jobs abroad. 5. The said show cause notice was served on Ghousuddin, the father of the petitioners. He submitted explanation dated 16-7-2001 and additional explanation dated 8-8-2002 to the said show cause notice. In the said explanation, he explained that the said show cause notice was affixed to his house. The assignments were made when he was working as U.D.C. in the Revenue Department in Nizamabad District, but not in Medak District, and that he never influenced for grant of assignment in favour of the petitioners. His sons were separated from him long back and the assignments were made to them in their individual capacity after thorough enquiry, on being found that they were landless poor. The assignees were personally cultivating the land without contravening the conditions of assignments. The assignees went abroad in the year 19971998 during the drought situation in the area and returned without securing any jobs there. 6. As regards the petitioner in W.P. No. 749 of 2007, it was explained that the original assignee was Syed Wajid and after his death his son Syed Abdul Khadder inherited the said land and after his demise, his wife Smt Mujeebunissa Begum (petitioner in W.P.No. 749 of 2007) inherited the said land along with her children. 7. 6. As regards the petitioner in W.P. No. 749 of 2007, it was explained that the original assignee was Syed Wajid and after his death his son Syed Abdul Khadder inherited the said land and after his demise, his wife Smt Mujeebunissa Begum (petitioner in W.P.No. 749 of 2007) inherited the said land along with her children. 7. It was the contention in the explanation that the proposal to cancel the assignment was motivated on account of the dispute between the petitioners and the Forest Department, due to which the petitioners were constrained to institute a suit O.S.No. 112 of 1997 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Medak for demarcation of the suit schedule land and fix the boundaries between the assigned lands and the forest lands. 8. The suit O.S.No. 112 of 1997 and O.S. No. 19 and 67 of 1998 were decreed directing the demarcation of the boundaries between the lands. During the implementation process, the then Mandal Revenue Officer of Shankarampet Mandal Expected extraneous consideration from the petitioners in order to favourably implement the decree in favour of the petitioners. The demand so made" was declined on account of which the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarampet, developed grudge against the petitioners and submitted a factually incorrect report without conducting any enquiry. In the additional explanation it was explained that the father of the petitioner never worked in Medak District. Zepthi Shivnoor (V) being his native place, his family and sons were living in the said village for their livelihood and that there is no concept of joint family in the community to which he belonged to. His sons were separated long back after their marriages and the lands were assigned in their individual capacity after due enquiries. He retired from service in February, 1983 while working as Deputy Tahsildar, Elections. At the fag end of his service, he worked as Deputy Tahsildar in Special Scheme, for a short period of one year. Syed Abdul Wajid, the assignee, belonged to a different family and at the relevant point of time the assignees were landless poor persons, below the poverty line and they brought the respective lands under the personal cultivation. The petitioners are still cultivating the lands personally and the lands being dry lands, during the non-agricultural season, the petitioners are taking up other avocations for their livelihood. 9. The petitioners are still cultivating the lands personally and the lands being dry lands, during the non-agricultural season, the petitioners are taking up other avocations for their livelihood. 9. On the above grounds, the petitioners sought to sustain the assignments made in their favour and requested respondent No.2 to drop further action in the matter. 10. However, respondent No.1 passed the impugned orders, dated 20-12-2006, canceling the assignments and consequently directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shankarampet, to resume the lands to the Government. That is how the petitioners are before this Court. 11. Heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Assignments. 12. It is not in dispute that the assignment of land in W.P.No. 749 of 2007 was in favour of one Syed Wajid, resident of Zepathi Shivnoor (V). The said assignee was the father-in-law of the petitioner. The assignment was made on 31-5-1978. 13. Similarly it is also not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P.No. 750 of 2007 were granted pattas by order, dated 26-8-1983 and 10-5-1990. It is also not in dispute that Ghousuddin was the father of the petitioners and he was working, in the Revenue Department in Nizamabad District. It is also not disputed that he never worked in Medak District and retired from service in February, 1983, whereas the assignments, at the earliest, were made in August, 1983. Thus the pattas in respect of the petitioners in W.P.No. 750 of 2007, were granted subsequent to the retirement of Ghousuddin. 14. The 1st respondent cancelled pattas basing on the report of the Mandai Revenue Officer, Shankarampet, dated 4-4-2001. The copy of the said report is placed before this Court. A perusal of the said report shows that it does not appear to have been prepared after conducting any enquiry. The Mandal Revenue Officer has stated in his report that it is not known as to how Ghousuddin, the father of the petitioners, obtained pattas in favour of his children for an extent of Ac. 17.05 cents in the same survey number and that the petitioners were members of joint family and they were above the poverty line and obtained patta without being eligible. The petitioners are not in this Country and that their father, being the General Power Attorney, is acting on their behalf. 15. 17.05 cents in the same survey number and that the petitioners were members of joint family and they were above the poverty line and obtained patta without being eligible. The petitioners are not in this Country and that their father, being the General Power Attorney, is acting on their behalf. 15. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.1 cancelled the pattas, holding that the father of the petitioners was a Government servant in the Revenue Department, and that mere serving in other District does not confer any right on his sons to get assignment of the Government land and that the assignees are not residing in India, nor personally cultivating the lands. 16. It may be mentioned that the Respondent No.1 while holding so, has not controverted the facts pleaded in the explanation to the show cause notice that the Mandal Revenue Officer did not conduct any enquiry for ascertaining the facts and the said report was prepared without notice to the petitioners. It is also not controverted that the petitioners were landless poor and the subsequent improvement in financial status could not be taken into consideration for initiation of proceedings and that the assignees developed their lands and personally cultivating the same and that there is no concept of joint family among them. 17. As per Clause III of Land Assignment - Revised Assignment Policy in G.O.Ms. No. 1406, Revenue, dated 31-7-1958, published in A.P.Gazette, the lands at the disposal of the Government should be assigned only to landless poor persons who directly engage themselves in cultivation, including Harijans, ex-toddy tapper, backward communities and weavers. As per Clause IV, a landless poor person is one who owns not more than one acre of wet or 5 acres or dry land and is also poor. The question whether a person is poor or not is left to the discretion of the assigning authorities. One acre of wet will be treated as 5 acres of dry land. Irrigable dry land shall be treated as wet land. The share of each member of a joint family, as also the enjoyment of the income of the joint family by an applicant will be taken into consideration for deciding whether or not he is a landless poor person. Irrigable dry land shall be treated as wet land. The share of each member of a joint family, as also the enjoyment of the income of the joint family by an applicant will be taken into consideration for deciding whether or not he is a landless poor person. As per Clause V, the maximum extent of land which may be assigned to a single individual should be limited to one acre wet or five acres dry, subject to the proviso that in computing the area lands owned by the assigned shall be taken into account, so that the lands assigned to him together with what is already owned by him does not exceed the total extent of one acre of wet or five acres of dry land. Variations upon 10 per cent may be allowed wherever necessary. 18. Applying the said provisions to the instant case, indisputably, none of the petitioners had any land prior to the date of assignment. Therefore, it can be safely said that the petitioners were landless persons prior to the date of assignment. Whether the petitioners are poor or not is a matter of discretion of the assessing authorities. It was a matter well within their domain to conduct enquiry and ascertain the said fact. 19. Clause IV, in fact, postulates that even in respect of the members of a joint family, the share of each member, as, also the enjoyment of income of the joint family would be liable to be taken into consideration for deciding whether the applicant is a landless poor person. 20. It is not the case of the respondents that all the petitioners, who are said to be the members of the joint family, had some income and a share from the joint family. Absolutely, there is no material to show that any of them had any independent income or any share from the joint family. 21. The report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 4-4-2007, on the basis of which the pattas were cancelled, does not reflect the facts as existed on the date of assignment. As required under the provisions of the Revised Policy Assignment in G.O.Ms.No. 1406, Revenue, dated 25-7-1958, the applicants have to satisfy the eligibility criteria as on the date of the assignment and not their status subsequent thereto. As required under the provisions of the Revised Policy Assignment in G.O.Ms.No. 1406, Revenue, dated 25-7-1958, the applicants have to satisfy the eligibility criteria as on the date of the assignment and not their status subsequent thereto. A person acquiring property or achieving prosperity either from the land assigned or from other sources subsequent to the date of assignment cannot be held to be disqualified retrospectively and the prosperity achieved post assignment cannot relate back for the purpose of disqualifying him. The report of the Mandal Revenue Officer does not show that any effort had been made to ascertain the economic status of the applicants or their eligibility or otherwise as on the date of the assignment. The report, therefore, being perfunctory in nature and lacking any particulars as on the date of assignment, in my considered view, cannot be the basis for canceling the assignment. 22. As mentioned earlier in W.P.No. 749 of 2007, the petitioner herself was not assigned the land. Instead, the assignment was made in favour of Syed Wajid S/o Ahmed, who did not originally belong to the family of Ghousuddin. Admittedly, the patta was granted in favour of Syed Wajid, but it is a matter of surprise that even without verification of this fact, the respondents have treated as if the pattas were granted in favour of petitioner. It is surprising that this incorrect fact has also been pleaded in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2. Be that as it may, the impugned order in W.P.No. 749 of 2007 is unsustainable even on the ground Of non-application of mind. 23. Admittedly, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order as a revisional authority in exercise of the powers purportedly under Section 166-B of the Act. 24. As per the said provision the competent authority may call for the record of the case or proceedings from the subordinate department and inspect it in order to satisfy himself that the order or decision passed or the proceedings taken is regular, legal and proper and may make suitable order in that behalf after hearing the parties concerned. 25. This shows that a duty cast upon such competent authority to satisfy himself about the legality, regularity and propriety of the order. It is enjoined upon him to independently assess whether the order has been passed legally and properly. The exercise of said power is not mechanical. 25. This shows that a duty cast upon such competent authority to satisfy himself about the legality, regularity and propriety of the order. It is enjoined upon him to independently assess whether the order has been passed legally and properly. The exercise of said power is not mechanical. In the instant case, as discussed above, respondent No.1 has merely relied upon the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which itself is without any basis and without any enquiry. I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.1 has not independently examined the matter satisfying himself as required under Section 166-B. 26. Sri Ghousuddin, the father of the petitioner, retired from service in February, 1983 and became a pensioner ever since then. If the respondents seek to disqualify on the ground that the father of the petitioners was a Government servant, it may be noted that he ceased to be a Government servant. No material is forthcoming to show that he influenced the authorities for granting pattas in favour of his children. It is not even the case of the respondents that the patta was obtained by the petitioners fraudulently. These basic facts were adverted to nor taken into consideration by respondent No.1 while canceling the assignment of the petitioners. 27. The pattas were granted as early as 1978, 1983 and 1990 and after a lapse of considerable time, resumption proceedings were initiated only in the year 2001. The question whether suo motu action could be initiated after such a long lapse of time or not, is no longer res integra. 28. In A. Kondanda Rao and another v. Government of A.P. (1) 1981 (2) ALT 280 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court while examining the suo motu revisional powers under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and also after referring to a decision of Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Nath and others (2) AIR 1969 SC 1297 , held thus: "The judgment or the Supreme Court is undoubtedly an authority for the proposition that even though no period is prescribed or the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the statute, that power must be exercised within a reasonable time. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which is binding on us under Article 141, we must necessarily hold that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction beyond the reasonable time cannot be sustained........ ..." It is also held: "There can be no doubt that where no period of limitation is prescribed by the Act or the Rules made thereunder for the exercise of the suo motu power of revision, the exercise of the power cannot be impugned on the ground that it is barred by limitation. No period of limitation can be imposed other wise than by statute or the rules made thereunder. But nonetheless, merely because power is vested in an authority to revise the orders of the subordinate authorities suo motu, as observed by our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J. in the order under appeal, "the power has to be exercised within a reasonable time." In our view in cases where no period of limitation is prescribed under the statute or the rules made thereunder for exercise of Revisional powers suo motu, the question for consideration is not whether the exercise of the power is barred by limitation - for in the absence of a period of limitation prescribed under the Act, the question of bar of limitation cannot arise - it is a question of the reasonable period of limitation within which that power should be exercised where the question is one exercising that power within a reasonable time and what is reasonable period would undoubtedly be dependant upon the facts and circumstances of each case". 29. In Smt. P. Mangamma and others v. The Women's Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Barakatpura, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary and others (3) 1995 (3) ALT 330 (DB), this Court, while considering the same provisions i.e., Section 166-B of the Act, applied the same principle that suo motu powers can be exercised only without a reasonable time. 30. In Laxminarayana and another v. Joint Collector, Khammam and another (4) 1998 (2) ALT 258 wherein interpreting the same section, a learned single judge of this Court while referring to A. Kodanda Rao's case (1 supra) held that in the absence of an allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, power of cancellation after a period of ten years cannot be exercised. 31. 31. In V. Tulasiram and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (5) 2009 (4) ALD 140 , wherein this Court interpreting the provisions of Section 166-B and while exercising the scope of exercise of suo motu powers under Section 166-B observed as follows: ".. ......alternatively the exercise of the revisional power under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act (even suo motu and though no specific limitation period is prescribed therein), is in the considered view of this Court wholly unjustified and arbitrary. There is a long and venerated catena of precedential authority for the proposition that even exercise of suo motu power whether administrative or quasi judicial including revisional, must be within a reasonable time. The precedents are clear that the exercise of an administrative or quasi judicial power is necessarily linked to the concept of rule of law and the exercise of such power after a long lapse of time is prima facie arbitrary - Vide Manasaram v. S.P. Pathak, AIR 1983 SC 1239 , P. Managamma v. Workmen Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. 1995 (3) ALT 330 (DB) = 1995 (3) ALD 594 Gudepu Sailoo and others v. Government of A.P. 1997 (5) ALT 598 = 1998 (3) ALD 652 , Hindustan Times v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 242 = 1998 (2) ALD (SCSN) 6, Laxminarayana and others v. Joint Collector, Khammam, 1998 (2) AL T 258 = 1998 (3) ALD 107 , M. Narasayya and others v. P. Ranga Reddy and others, 2001 (2) ALT 269 , Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Kooli Sangam v. K. Suresh Reddy and others, (2003) 7 SCC 667 , Vallabhadas Pallod v. The Municipal Council, Zaheerabad and others, W.A. No. 674 of 2004 and Batch, dated 13-4-2005 reported in 2009 (4) ALD 129 (DB), S. Santhanam v. State of A.P., Revenue Department and others, 2006 (2) ALT 341 = 2006 (2) A LD 566 and Pratap Janglel Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Collector, R.R.District, 2008 (4) ALT 794 (DB) = 2009 (1) A LD 401". 32. On the same set of facts, same is the view taken by the Apex Court in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Kooli Sangam v. K. Suresh Reddy and others (6) 2001 (2) ALT 269 . 33. 32. On the same set of facts, same is the view taken by the Apex Court in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Kooli Sangam v. K. Suresh Reddy and others (6) 2001 (2) ALT 269 . 33. On the consideration of the principles enunciated in the judgments referred to above and applying the said principles to the facts of the present case it is to be held that the suo motu powers exercised by respondent No.1 is wholly unjustified. 34. On the above analysis, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order, dated 20-12-2006 passed by respondent No.1 Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy, is hereby set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.