Limitation-based dismissal does not bar later suo motu revision; revisional power must still be exercised within a reasonable time.

A dismissal of a revision petition as time-barred does not amount to a decision on merits, so it does not trigger merger or make the revisional authority functus officio. The Director could therefore later invoke suo motu revisional power over the same settlement order. Even so, a suo motu revisional power with no express limitation must be exercised within a reasonable time, and delay remains a relevant factor. Because the delay required closer scrutiny, the suo motu order could not stand without further consideration before the Commissioner of Land Revenue on the issue of delay and propriety.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of a revision petition as barred by limitation precluded the Director from later exercising suo motu revisional power over the same settlement order on the ground of merger or functus officio; (ii) Whether the suo motu revisional order could be sustained when invoked after a long lapse of time.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of a revision petition as barred by limitation precluded the Director from later exercising suo motu revisional power over the same settlement order on the ground of merger or functus officio

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 5(2) of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948 is a statutory power to cancel or revise orders of the Settlement Officer. A refusal to entertain a revision petition as time-barred does not amount to an adjudication on merits, since the authority does not hear the parties or decide the controversy. In such circumstances, the prior order does not operate as a revisional decision so as to attract merger or render the Director functus officio.

Conclusion: The prior dismissal of the time-barred revision did not bar the Director from invoking suo motu revisional jurisdiction later.

Issue (ii): Whether the suo motu revisional order could be sustained when invoked after a long lapse of time

Analysis: Even where no express limitation period is prescribed for suo motu revision, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time. What is reasonable depends on the facts of each case, and the delay is a relevant factor in deciding whether interference is justified. The lapse of time in the present matter warranted reconsideration by the higher revenue authority rather than outright validation of the suo motu order.

Conclusion: The suo motu revisional order could not be sustained without the affected party being given an opportunity to seek revision on the question of delay and propriety before the Commissioner of Land Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ order was set aside to the extent indicated, and the respondents were left at liberty to pursue revision before the Commissioner of Land Revenue on all available grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A dismissal of a revision petition solely on limitation, without examination of merits, does not amount to an exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the purposes of merger or functus officio, and suo motu revisional power must in any event be exercised within a reasonable time.

---