ORDER: Heard the learned counsel Mr.L.Preetham Reddy, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and learned Counsel Mr. Bobbili Srinivas, on behalf of Respondent No.5. 2. PRAYER : Petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under : “To issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring initiating suo motto proceedings No.F3/518/2018 and issuance of hearing notice dated 02.01.2019, on the file of 2nd respondent District Collector, Medak upon the recommendation of the 3rd respondent against the petitioner herein in Sy.No.92, Nagasanpalli village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District after long lapse of time as arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Lands and Pattedar Pass Books Act 1971.” 3. Case of the Petitioners as per the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition in brief is as under : a) The petitioners have purchased the land from Battula Rajani, who in turn purchased it from M/s Indian Poultry Pvt. Ltd, under two registered sale deeds both dated 27.12.2010 bearing Document No. 4732/2010 for an extent of Ac. 10-00 in Sy.No. 92/3 in favour of 1st petitioner and further executed another registered sale deed in favour of 2nd petitioner bearing Document No. 4731 of 2010 for an extent Ac. 16-00 in Sy.No. 92/2 and Ac.6-00 in Sy.No. 92/3, Nagasanpalli village, Gram Panchayath Thimmapur, Kodipallimandal, Medak district. The petitioners herein also obtained respective pattadar pass books bearing No. 141150 and 11228371 respectively. b) Thereafter, it appears that, on 26.06.2015, the 5th respondent has made a representation to the 3rd respondent without enclosing any documents requesting to enter the 5th respondent’s name in the revenue records from the year 1991-92 onwards by deleting the names of Basic Breeders, G.V. Aswin Reddy and B. Rajini. Thus, based on the said representation, the 3rd respondent entertained the same in an improper, illegal manner without any authority of law. The 3rd respondent herein merely relied upon the report alleged to have been submitted by 4th respondent dated 24.08.2015, who in turn relied upon an ex parte report of V.R.O. Nagasanpalli dated 03.07.2015. Thus, based on the said representation, the 3rd respondent entertained the same in an improper, illegal manner without any authority of law. The 3rd respondent herein merely relied upon the report alleged to have been submitted by 4th respondent dated 24.08.2015, who in turn relied upon an ex parte report of V.R.O. Nagasanpalli dated 03.07.2015. c) Subsequently, the 3rd respondent herein on one hand states that files are not traced in his office nor called for the file from the R.D.O. office, Medak and came to a wrong conclusion not only with regard to the entries and also with regard to the ORCs without any justification in an arbitrary manner. The 3rd respondent further informed the 2nd respondent herein to take up Suo moto revision u/s 9 of the Act and also to take up steps for deletion of names of Mallaiah and 5 others and all subsequent purchasers and to restore the land as Inam, so as to enable him to issue Occupancy Rights Certificates. d) Therefore, the 2nd respondent herein at the behest of the 3rd respondent initiated Suo motto proceedings No. F3/518/2018 and issued a notice dated 02.01.2019 to the petitioners herein. In the said proceedings, though the 3rd respondent letter dated 27.03.2018 was referred as the basis for the decision, for deletion of alleged wrong entries in respect of Ac. 157-12 gts. said to have been made in the pahanies for the year 1986-87, however it was upon the alleged application of the 5th respondent made before the 3rd respondent that the proceedings impugned had been initiated against the petitioner. e) Moreover, in the said proceedings neither the application is said to have been made by the 5th respondent before the 3rd respondent, nor documents referred to or at least the letter dated 27.03.2018 of the 3rd respondent were enclosed by the 2nd respondent herein. f) The 2nd respondent without verifying the records from the concerned authorities merely acted upon letter of the 3rd respondent dated 27.03.2018. Therefore, the Suo moto proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent after more than 2 decades, at the instance of the 3rd respondent is highly arbitrary, opposed to the rule of law and improper exercise of the jurisdiction. f) The 2nd respondent without verifying the records from the concerned authorities merely acted upon letter of the 3rd respondent dated 27.03.2018. Therefore, the Suo moto proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent after more than 2 decades, at the instance of the 3rd respondent is highly arbitrary, opposed to the rule of law and improper exercise of the jurisdiction. Also, in view of the developments made by the petitioner by constructing poultry farm sheds etc., and also in view of the steep escalation of land value, the 5th respondent made belated claim in an improper manner for extortion of money from the petitioner in an illegal manner. The respondent authorities at the instance of 5th respondent has taken up the impugned proceedings which is nothing but waste of precious time but also abuse of due process of law. Hence this Writ Petition. PERUSED THE RECORD : 4. The Counter Affidavit filed by the 5th Respondent, in particular, paras 2, 3, 4 and 5, reads as under: “2. It is submitted that agriculture land to an extant of Ac. 157.12 gts in Sy.No.92 situated at Nagusanpally village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District is Dasthgardha Inam land in the name of my father R.Kishan Rao from 1954-55 to 1978-79. My father died on 15th June 1959. After his death myself and my brothers have inherited the above said property. Myself and my brothers namely Ranga Rao, R. Seetha Rama rao were recorded as Inamdars in the Pahanis pertaining to the year 1979-80 to 1986-87. 3. However, the land was dealt by the Revenue Authorities under Ceiling on Agricultural Holding (COAH) Act.1973 and the Land Reforms Tribunal at Medak determined that the father of the this Respondent late R.Kishan Rao was holding the land to an extent of 2.5593 standard holdings in excess of ceiling area. The said order was confirmed in appeal L.R.A. No.24/1986, dated 31.07.1992 by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal Medak at Sangareddy. Aggrieved by the same the Petitioner has filed C.R.P. No.447 of 1993 on the ground of that the subject land is Inam land as such the proceeding under COAH Act is not maintainable. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the C.R.P. on 28.12.1995 directing the R.D.O. to conduct fresh enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter the proceedings before Land Reforms Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak pending for consideration. 4. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the C.R.P. on 28.12.1995 directing the R.D.O. to conduct fresh enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter the proceedings before Land Reforms Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak pending for consideration. 4. While so, I came to know that M/s. Basic Breeders Pvt. Ltd., has been claiming title over the land admeasuring Ac.120 out of Ac.157 in Sy.No.92 by virtue of alleged sale from unscrupulous persons. The Registered sale deeds dated 29.10.1986 show that the vendors of Basic Breeders Pvt Ltd are namely Balaiah, Ramaiah, Mallaiah, Laxmaiah, Kistaiah and Shivaiah. The said vendors have no right, title or interest in the property in Sy. No. 92, to convey the title. As such the further sales in favour of Bathula Rajani and in favour of the Petitioner shall not convey any title. On my enquiry I came to know that already Sub Collector, Medak District has rejected the application of 1. Domadugu Balaiah, 2. Patta Ramaiah, 3. Baliga Mallaiah, 4. Bakka Laxmaiah, 5. Gandla Kistaiah, 6. Sale Shivaiah for ORC in 1982 as shown under : Sl. No. Sub Collector File No. Date Name of the Petitioner Survey No Extent 01. E/2496/82 18.06.1982 Domadugu Balaiah, S/o Mallaiah 92 20.00 02. E/2497/82 18.06.1982 Patta Ramaiah, S/o Mallaiah 92 20.00 03. E/2498/82 18.06.1982 Baliga Mallaiah, S/o Bakkaiah 92 20.00 04. E/2499/82 18.06.1982 Bakka Laxmaiah, S/o Sailu 92 20.00 05. E/2500/82 18.06.1982 Gandla Kistaiah, S/o Rangaiah 92 20.00 06. E/2501/82 18.06.1982 Sale Shivaiah, S/o Veeraiah 92 20.00 Total 120.00 5. It is submitted that in fact there were no such persons existed in that village or nearby villages in Medak District. I submit that the above said alleged persons have allegedly made applications through one unknown person and those applications seems to have been rejected by the SubCollector Medak as stated above vide memo dated 09.06.1982. Aggrieved by the same those unscrupulous persons preferred appeals before the District Collector Medak and all the appeals were dismissed on 03.01.1984. Even then the sale deeds were created by the said unscrupulous persons on the strength of Occupancy Right Certificates dated 31.08.1985. In fact the said ORC certificates dated 31.08.1985 are fake, bogus and created for the purpose of sale deeds. Even then the sale deeds were created by the said unscrupulous persons on the strength of Occupancy Right Certificates dated 31.08.1985. In fact the said ORC certificates dated 31.08.1985 are fake, bogus and created for the purpose of sale deeds. On the strength of those fake sale deeds several transactions took place and the Petitioner seemed to have purchased the said land from their vendor who has no title in the subject land.” 5. The impugned Hearing Notice vide Letter No.F3/518/2018, dated 02.01.2019 on the file of 2nd Respondent District Collector, Medak, reads as under : “The RDO, Narsapur vide reference cited has reported that, one Sri R.Janaki Rama Rao, S/o. Kishan Rao has filed an application before the then RDO Medak stating that the land in Sy.No. 92 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.157.12 gts is Dasthgardha Inam land, which is illegally recorded as patta from the pahani of 1986-87 in the name of Balaiah, Kistaiah S/o Rangaiah, Kistaiah S/o Veeraiah, Mallaiah S/o Bakkaiah, Bakka Laxmaiah & Palle Ramaiah etc., and requested to delete the wrong entries and to issue Occupancy Right Certificate in their favour. Accordingly, notices have been issued to all the concerned for submission of the connected documents and ORCs said to be issued to verify the genuinity of the same and in response to the notices M/s. Basic Breeders Pvt Ltd has submitted the ORCs stated to have been issued by the then RDO Medak in favour of their vendors. As such it has been decided to examine the matter U/s 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 to examine the matter in details for deletion of wrong entries made if any in respect of Sy.No.92 of Nagsanpally village of Kowdipally Mandal. Please take notice that, the case is posted for hearing on 05.01.2019 at 11.00 AM in the Court of the Joint Collector, Medak. You are therefore directed to appear before the Joint Collector, Medak on the above date and time and represent your case either in person or through an advocate, failing which the matter will be decided based on available record.” 6. The relevant portion of the Report of the RDO, Narsapur, forwarded to the Collector, Medak District vide Lr.No.C/1608/2017, dated 24.03.2018. You are therefore directed to appear before the Joint Collector, Medak on the above date and time and represent your case either in person or through an advocate, failing which the matter will be decided based on available record.” 6. The relevant portion of the Report of the RDO, Narsapur, forwarded to the Collector, Medak District vide Lr.No.C/1608/2017, dated 24.03.2018. “In this regard it is to submit that the request of the above persons for issue of ORC has already been rejected by the Sub Collector Medak in Case No’s.E/2496/82 to E/2501/82 vide order dated 09.06.1982 and confirmed by the District Collector in the appeal vide order dated 03.01.1984. Thus, the above said Occupancy Right Certificates issued in their names seems to be false and created. The concerned files referred above have not been traced out at RDO office Medak. Since, this office is newly formed and started functioning with effect from 11.10.2016, the above records have not been transferred to this office. Accordingly, the case has been taken on record as an appeal U/s 5 of A.P.Rights in Land & PPB Act, 1971 and thereafter it came up for hearing several times and noticed that it is not a mutation made by the Tahsildar U/s 5 of the Act in favour of Domadugu Balaiah and (5) others and therefore it does not attract section 5 (5) of the Act empowering the RDO to take it as an appeal and set aside the same. The Tahsildar requested for deletion of the wrong entries in the name of Domadugu Balaiah and (5) others and subsequently the name of purchasers namely Basic Breeders Pvt Ltd, Laxmi Banjara which amounts to wrong entries. As per section 3(3) of Telangana Rights in land & PPB Act 1971 read with rule 15 & 16, the Tahsildar is competent to rectify wrong entries in the record up to a period of one year and thereafter the Joint Collector is only competent U/s 9 for rectification of the same. In which, the wrong entries are recorded from 1986- 87, thus the Tahsildar and RDO are not competent to rectify the same and it is only the Joint Collector having jurisdiction to rectify the same. In which, the wrong entries are recorded from 1986- 87, thus the Tahsildar and RDO are not competent to rectify the same and it is only the Joint Collector having jurisdiction to rectify the same. Therefore, I request kindly to take it as suo-moto revision U/s 9 of the Act and pass orders to delete the name of Mallaiah & (5) others and subsequent purchasers and to restore it as Inam so that action can be taken by the undersigned U/s 4 of Inams Abolition Act, 1955 for issue of ORCs in favour of deserving persons.” 7. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners mainly puts-forth the following submissions : i. Exercising suo moto power after more than 33 long years in the year 2019 with regard to the correction of alleged wrong entries of the year 1986-87 is an arbitrary exercise of power. ii. The impugned proceedings are based upon the dictates and letters of Respondent No.3 and 4. iii. The 5th Respondent without availing the remedy before appropriate Civil Court approached the 3rd Respondent and the 3rd Respondent erroneously directed the 2nd Respondent to take suo moto revision U/s.9 of the Act and delete the entries. iv. The 2nd Respondent did not apply its mind independently after verifying the record and proceeded in the matter with a predetermined mind and premeditated attitude ignoring the fact as borne on record that series of alienations made under Registered Sale Deeds involving third party rights to the subject land had come up in view of long lapse of time. v. The Revision Power under Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 is not available to the Respondents in the absence of any challenge to the grant of ORCs by way of filing Appeal before Appellate Authority under the Inams Abolition Act. vi. The application for correction made by the 5th Respondent is not in accordance with prescribed form under the said Act and Rules and in the absence of any material in support of the allegations, after long lapse of time is liable to be rejected without any due consideration. vii. vi. The application for correction made by the 5th Respondent is not in accordance with prescribed form under the said Act and Rules and in the absence of any material in support of the allegations, after long lapse of time is liable to be rejected without any due consideration. vii. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for and placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in (i) 2017 (16) SCC 418 in “KUTCHI LAL RAMESHWAR ASHRAM TRUST EVAM ANNA KSHETRA TRUST THROUGH VELJI DEVSHI PATEL v. COLLECTOR, HARIDWAR AND OTHERS”, dated 22.09.2017, (ii) 2018 (2) ALD 553 in “GUNDETI MURALI AND OTHERS v. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, KARIMNAGAR AND OTHERS” dated 20.12.2017, (iii) 2017 (7) SCC 694 in “AGNIGUNDALA VENKATA RANGA RAO v. INDUKURU RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS”, dated 13.04.2017, (iv) AIR 2015 SC 1021 in “JT.COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DIST. AND ANOTHER ETC. v. D.NARSING RAO ETC. AND OTHERS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES, TEACHERS AND WORKERS, A.P. v. D.NARSING RAO AND OTHERS ETC.”, dated 13.01.2015, (v) 2015 (5) ALD 601 in “T.RAJESWARI v. JOINT COLLECTOR, NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE AND OTHERS”, dated 20.04.2015, (vi) 2019 (3) ALD 600 (TS) in “VENKAT RAJA REDDY NAGULA v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS”, dated 09.04.2019 and (vii) 2015 SCC Online, Hyd. 834 in “K.A.SWAMY v. STATE OF A.P., REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS”, dated 01.04.2015. 8. This Court vide orders dated 13.02.2019 passed interim orders in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.2706 of 2019 in favour of the Petitioners observing as under : I.A.No.1 of 2018 “The proposed exercise of revisionary jurisdiction after the lapse of several decades requires examination. Prima facie, case law (JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT v. D.NARSINGH RAO (2015) 3 SCC 695 ) would support the contention of the petitioners that such exercise is untenable in law. There shall accordingly be interim stay as prayed for.” The said orders are in force as on date. 9. The learned Government Pleader placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by Respondents No.1 to 4 mainly puts-forth the following contentions. There shall accordingly be interim stay as prayed for.” The said orders are in force as on date. 9. The learned Government Pleader placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by Respondents No.1 to 4 mainly puts-forth the following contentions. (i) The impugned hearing notice dated 02.01.2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein upon the recommendation of the 3rd Respondent and in pursuance to the letter of the 3rd Respondent RDO, Narsapur letter No.C/1608/2017, dated 27.03.2018 which was in response to representation submitted by the 5th Respondent before Respondent No.3 on 26.06.2015 contending that certain illegal entries were carried out in respect of Sy.No.92 admeasuring to an extent Ac.157.12 gts., in Dasthgardha Inam Land recording the said subject land as patta from the pahani of 1986-87 in the name of Balaiah, Kistaiah S/o. Rangaiah, Ramaiah etc., and had requested to delete the wrong entries and to issue Occupancy Rights Certificate in their favour, and that the 3rd Respondent upon receipt of the said representation dated 26.06.2015 had sought a report from the 4th Respondent and the 4th Respondent had submitted a detailed report observing that as per the Khasara Pahani 1954-55, the land in Sy.No.92 is classified as “Dasthagardha Inam” and Sri R.Kishan Rao was recorded as Inamdar till 1978-79, thereafter the name of the Respondent No.5 and his brothers were recorded as Inamdars in the pahani of the year 1979-80 to 1986-87 and the Tahsildar had further reported that during the year 1986-87 names of Sri S.Mallaiah & others were recorded as pattadar passbook in occupancy column and had sold the land in favour of M/s. Basic Breeders Pvt., Ltd., and on perusal of the records the Sub-Collector, Medak Division concluded that some fraud had occurred and the names of Sri S.Mallaiah and others had entered into the records without there being any mutation orders in the record. (ii) In view that the said aforesaid circumstances established reasonable suspicion that some fraud had occurred on the Government both by the vendors of the Petitioners as well as the unofficial Respondent the Respondent No.2 has rightly invoked the jurisdiction U/s.9 of ROR Act, 1971. (iii) Sec.9 of the ROR Act, 1971 contemplates Revisional power on the Respondent No.2 either suo-moto or on the application for correction of entries in the Revenue Records. (iii) Sec.9 of the ROR Act, 1971 contemplates Revisional power on the Respondent No.2 either suo-moto or on the application for correction of entries in the Revenue Records. (iv) There is no illegality or any infirmity in issuing the impugned notice and the very writ petition is not maintainable against a mere notice. Hence the writ petition needs to be dismissed. (v) Though the revisional power admittedly is exercised after a period of 30 years, yet the relevant documents established reasonable suspicion and fraud and as such no limitation can be made applicable to the facts on hand. (vi) Fraud vitiates even judicial acts and therefore the interim orders dated 07.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.1/2019 in W.P.No.2369/2019 should be vacated and the writ petition dismissed. (vii) The learned Government pleader placed reliance on the judgment dated 03.04.2018 in Kasani Gnaneshwar Vs. Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District & Others in W.A.No.268/2018 and also the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1 in S.P.Chenganvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LR’s & Others, dated 27.10.1993 in particular Para 1 wherein it is observed as under : Para 1 : “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and nonest in the eyes of law. Such a judgement/decree – by the first court or by the highest court – has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. Based on the aforesaid submissions the learned Government Pleader contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Such a judgement/decree – by the first court or by the highest court – has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. Based on the aforesaid submissions the learned Government Pleader contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th Respondent placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 5th Respondent mainly puts-forth the following contentions : (i) The subject land to an extent of Ac.157.12 gts., in Sy.No.92 situated at Nagusanpally Village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District is Dasthgardha Inam Land in name of 5th Respondent’s father R.Kishna Rao from 1954-55 to 1978-79 and that he had died on 15.06.1959 and thereafter the 5th Respondent and his brothers had inherited the subject property and the 5th Respondent and his brothers namely Janakirama Rao, Ranga Rao and R.Sitarama Rao were recorded as Inamdars in the pahanis pertaining to the year 1979-80 to 1986-87. That the vendor of the Petitioner M/s.Basic Breeders Pvt., Ltd., had been claiming title over the land admeasuring Ac.120.00 out of acres 157.00 in Sy.No.92 by virtue of alleged sale from unscrupulous persons. The Registered Sale Deeds dated 29.10.1986 show that the vendors of M/s. Basic Breeders Pvt. Ltd., are namely Balaiah, Ramaiah, Mallaiah, Laxmaiah, Kistaiah and Sivaiah, and the said vendors have no right, title or interest in the property in Sy.No.92 to convey the title. As such the further sales in favour of G.V.Aswin and in favour of the Petitioner shall not convey any title, and that the 5th Respondent got information under RTI Act from RDO, Medak on ORCs issued from 1979-1993 of Nagasaipally Village and Devulapally Village of Kowdipally Mandal and the said information indicated that 15 ORCs were issued to various persons but no ORCs were issued to the vendors of M/s.Basic Breeders Pvt. Ltd., from whom the Petitioner had purchased the said subject land. (ii) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th Respondent contended that in the present case fraud had occurred and hence the present writ petition needs to be dismissed since there is no illegality in issuing the Hearing Notice by the 2nd Respondent since the 2nd Respondent felt that fraud had occurred in the entries pertaining to the subject land and since it is only a show cause notice the Petitioner can reply and raise all the contentions as put-forth in the present writ petition before the 2nd Respondent and hence the writ petition needs to be dismissed. (iii) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th Respondent placed reliance on the judgment dated 16.06.2003 passed in W.P.No.11055/2003 reported in 2003 (5) ALD 215 and contended that the suo moto original power of the Joint Collector should no doubt be exercised within reasonable time, the said rule however, has no application where benefit is obtained by playing fraud. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION DISCUSSION : 11. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the very basis of issuing the impugned Hearing Notice dated 02.01.2019 by the 2nd Respondent vide Lr.No.F3/ 518/2018 is the Report of RDO, Narsapur, dated 27.03.2018 vide Lr.No.C/1608/2017 addressed to the 2nd Respondent herein which though clearly in its Report observed that the concerned files had not been traced out at RDO Office, Medak, but however, in its conclusion erroneously requested the 2nd Respondent to take the subject issue as a suo moto revision under Sec. 9 of the Act and pass orders to delete the names of Mallaiah & 5 others and subsequent purchasers and to restore it as Inam unilaterally without issuing a Notice to the Petitioner in clear violation of principles of natural justice and further the contents of the letter/report dated 24.08.2015 of the Tahsildar, Kowdipally Mandal vide Lr.No.B/1522/2015 addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak indicates that the 4th Respondent clearly in the said report requested the 3rd Respondent to pass orders to delete the names recorded in the pahani in the name of M/s. Basic Breeders Pvt. Ltd., in land bearing Sy.No.92, extent Ac.120.00 situated at Nagsanpally Village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District and to record the name of the 5th Respondent in the pahani. 12. 12. This Court on perusal of the entire material on record opines that it is only at the instance of 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents herein that the 2nd Respondent initiated the proceedings against the Petitioner and decided to examine the subject issue U/s.9 of the ROR Act, 1971 without applying his mind independently on the subject issue. 13. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned Hearing Notice dated 02.01.2019 vide Lr.No.F3/518/2018 of the 2nd Respondent does not indicate the word fraud as alleged in the counter affidavit having been discovered by the State nor the date when the said alleged fraud that had crept into the Revenue Records had been discovered by the State due to which the 2nd Respondent took a decision to examine the matter U/s.9 of the ROR Act, 1971. 14. The impugned Hearing Notice dated 02.01.2019 is silent and does not explain the delay in taking a decision to examine the matter U/s.9 of ROR Act, 1971 pertaining to entries made in the pahani of 1986-87 in respect of Sy.No.92 of Nagsanpally Village of Kowdipally Mandal. 15. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2020 (14) SCC 228 in Vivek.M. Hinduja & Others Vs. M. Ashwatha & Others, dated 06.12.2017 at para 10 and 11 observed as under : “Para 10 : In Pune Municipal Corpn. V. State of Maharasthra this Court reproduced the following observations with regard to the declaration of orders beyond the period of limitation as invalid : (SCC p. 226, para 39). “39. Setting aside the decree passed by all the courts and referring to several cases, this Court held that if the party aggrieved by invalidity of the order intends to approach the court for declaration that the order against him was inoperative, he must come before the court within the period prescribed by limitation. ‘If the statutory time of limitation expires, the court cannot give the declaration sought for’ ”. Para 11 : We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even to suo moto actions. 16. Para 11 : We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even to suo moto actions. 16. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2015 SC 1021 in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Another etc., Vs. D. Narsing Rao etc., & Others etc., Chairman, Joint Action Committee of Employees, Teachers and Workers, A.P. Vs. D.Narsing Rao & Others, at para 24, 25 and 26 observed as under : “Para 24 : To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority. Para 25 : In the case at hand, while the entry sought to be corrected is described as fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice impugned before the High Court as to when the alleged fraud was discovered by the State. A specific statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the respondents. The attempt of the appellant-State to demonstrate that the notice was issued within a reasonable period of the discovery of the alleged fraud is, therefore, futile. A specific statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the respondents. The attempt of the appellant-State to demonstrate that the notice was issued within a reasonable period of the discovery of the alleged fraud is, therefore, futile. At any rate, when the Government allowed the land in question for housing sites to be given to Government employees in the year 1991, it must be presumed to have known about the record and the revenue entries concerning the parcel of land made in the ordinary course of official business. In as much as, the notice was issued as late as on 31st December, 2004, it was delayed by nearly 13 years. No explanation has been offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle the notice seeking to reverse the entries made half a century ago, was clearly beyond reasonable time and was rightly quashed. Para 26 : Having said that we must make it clear that we have not gone into the correctness of the alleged fraudulent entry nor have we expressed any opinion whether, the quashing of the notice dated 21st December, 2004 would prevent the State from taking such other steps as may be permissible under any provision of law. The High Court has, as a matter of fact, made it clear that the State Government shall be free to take any other steps or proceedings in accordance with law qua the land in question. That liberty should suffice for we have examined the matter only from the narrow angle whether the Khasara Pahani entry of 1954-55 could be corrected at this belated stage in exercise of the revisional powers vested in the competent authority under Section 166-B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. That question having been answered in the negative these appeals must fail and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” 17. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2017 (16) SCC 418 in Kutch Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust through Velji Devshi Patel Vs. That question having been answered in the negative these appeals must fail and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” 17. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2017 (16) SCC 418 in Kutch Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust through Velji Devshi Patel Vs. Collector, Haridwar and Others, dated 22.08.2017 at para 25 observed as under : “Para 25 : The principle that the law does not readily accept a claim to escheat and that the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts that an individual has died intestate, leaving no legal heir, qualified to succeed to the property, is founded on a sound rationale. Escheat in a doctrine which recognises the State as a paramount sovereign in whom property would vest only upon a clear and established case of a failure of heirs. This principle is based on the norm that in a society governed by the Rule of Law, the court will not presume that private titles are overridden in favour of the State, in the absence of a clear case being made out on the basis of a governing statutory provision. To allow administrative authorities of the State including the Collector, as in present case to adjudicate upon the Matters of title involving civil disputes would be destructive of the Rule of Law. The Collector is an officer of the State, He can exercise only such powers as the law specifically confers upon him to enter upon private disputes. In contrast, a civil court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon all matters involving civil disputes except where the jurisdiction of the court is taken away, either expressly or by necessary implication, by statute. In holding that the Collector acted without jurisdiction in the present case, it is not necessary for the Court to go as far as to validate the title which is claimed by the petitioner to the property. The Court is not called upon to decide whether the possession claimed by the Trust of over forty-five years is backed by a credible title. The essential point is that such an adjudicatory function could not have been arrogated to himself by the Collector. Adjudication on titles must follow recourse to the ordinary civil jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” 18. The essential point is that such an adjudicatory function could not have been arrogated to himself by the Collector. Adjudication on titles must follow recourse to the ordinary civil jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” 18. The Apex Court in Hindustan Times Vs. Union of India reported in 1998 SC 688 observed that it is now well settled that when statute does not prescribe any time for exercise of a particular power, the power should be exercised within a reasonable time. 19. This Court opines that the judgments relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents have no application to the facts of the case and all the pleas raised by the Respondents are untenable and hence rejected. The judgment of the Full Bench dated 21.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.913/2002, 3329 of 2006, 3376 of 2010 and W.A.Nos.1531 & 1608 of 2004, 543 & 547 of 2021 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondents pertained to ‘successor-in-interest’ to succeed to Inamdar based on purchase of Inam land and has no application to the facts of the present case, since the main issue in the present case is the initiation of suo moto proceedings of the 2nd Respondent and the decision of the 2nd Respondent to examine the subject issue U/s.9 of the ROR Act, 1971 for deletion of alleged wrong entries from the Pahani of 1986-87, made in respect of Sy.No.92 of Nagsanpally Village of Kowdipally Mandal, after 33 long years in the year 2019 at the instance of 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents without independent application of mind which is not only opposed to rule of law but also an improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in 2nd Respondent for extraneous considerations. CONCLUSION : 20. This Court opines that the 2nd Respondent cannot adjudicate upon matters of title involving civil disputes since the same would be destructive of the Rule of Law. CONCLUSION : 20. This Court opines that the 2nd Respondent cannot adjudicate upon matters of title involving civil disputes since the same would be destructive of the Rule of Law. A bare perusal of Sec.8(2) of ROR Act, 1971 reads as under : Section 8 (2) : If any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under ChapterVI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 43 of 1963), and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. 21. This Court opines that the 5th Respondent has a remedy U/s.8(2) of ROR Act, 1971 before appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievance as the issue involved is title to the property. 22. This Court opines that the 2nd Respondent did not apply his mind independently and proceeded in the matter as per the dictates and instructions of the 3rd and 4th Respondents herein exercising suo moto power after more than 33 long years in the year 2019 with regard to the correction of alleged wrong entries of the year 1986-87 and the same is not only arbitrary exercise of power but also contrary to the view of the Apex Court in the various judgments referred to and extracted above and contrary to the procedure laid down under Section 8(2) of ROR Act, 1971. 23. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and as per the discussion and conclusion arrived at as above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings Lr. No.F3/518/2018, dated 02.01.2019 on the file of the 2nd Respondent is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.