S. AUSTIN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to condone the huge and unexplained delay of 589 days in representing the STA.SR.No.59296 of 2018.

(2.) Mr.John Zachariah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that after the Settlement Officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands, Collectorate, Ootacamund, The Nilgiris, the 2 nd respondent herein, passed an order dated 06.03.2009 rejecting the request of the petitioner to grant Ryotwari Patta under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 24/69 in O.S.No.136/1A1B and 161/1 having an extent of 27.68 acres in Nelliyalam Village, Pandalur Taluk, The Nilgiris District under Section 12(1) of the Act, an appeal was filed on 10.07.2009 before the District Judge of Nilgiris and the Jenmam Estate Abolition Tribunal at Ootacumund, The Nilgiris, who also after considering the case of the petitioner, while confirming the order dated 06.03.2009 passed by the 2 nd respondent Settlement Officer, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein by the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.04.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has been advised to file further appeal before this Court. Accordingly, the present Statutory Appeal was filed before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that after the dismissal of the appeal by the District Judge of Nilgiris and the Jenmam Estate Abolition Tribunal at Ootacumund, The Nilgiris, a Statutory Appeal has to be filed within 90 days. Accordingly, this STA.SR.59296/2018 has been filed on 31.07.2018 before this Court, but the same was returned by the Registry on 03.08.2018 which has to be represented curing of the defects on or before 13.08.2018. However, since the issue regarding the lands falling within the ambit of Section 17 of Gudalur Jenmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 is being agitated by the Association in which the petitioner is also one of the members before the Apex Court in W.P.(C ) No.202/1995 and the issue was also pending before the Apex Court, it was felt that the orders passed by the Apex Court would have a direct bearing on any appeal that may be filed before this Court, therefore, the petitioner did not take any steps to cure the defects and bring the matter for hearing before this Court. In the meanwhile, 589 days in representing the appeal has occurred. Therefore, the delay is neither willful nor wanton, but only due to the aforesaid reason. Hence, the delay of 589 days in representing the appeal before this Court may be condoned, it is pleaded. Learned Counsel would also submit that if this Court feels that with any terms, the delay may be condoned, the petitioner would also abide by the same.