V NAGESWARAN Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions in the affidavits filed, though more than one point had been taken Mr. A. Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioners confines to a solitary point which relates to the scope of revisional and review powers, which could be exercised by the Land Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as Rules. It is indisputable that after appellate orders were passed under rule 10 by the District Revenue Officer, revision petitions were filed by the respective petitioners to Land Commissioner, and he rejected all the petitions on the sole ground that they have been filed beyond the period of limitation contemplated under rule 11 (3) (a) of the Rules. Thereafter the petitioners again filed review petitions and they were also dismissed by the Land Commissioner holding that he has no power to review his own orders. Being aggrieved with these two orders of the Land Commissioner, these writ petitions have been filed to quash both the orders.

(2.) MR. A. Ramanathan would contend that when the power to be exercised by the Land Commissioner in revision, is found under section 82 of the Land Reforms Act and under rule 62 of the Rules framed therein, he has the power to admit an application presented within 30 days, after the period of 60 days provided under sub-rule (1), on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the revision on time, and hence the manner in which the Land Commissioner had rejected the revision petitions was patently erroneous. He pleads that before ever an adverse order is passed, it is obligatory on the part of the Land Commissioner to hear the party against whom an adverse order is to be passed, and thereafter to pass final orders and that such a course had not been adopted. He then contended that, if for any reason section 82 of the Act rule 62 framed thereunder cannot be invoked, then under rule 11 (3) (b) he is conferred with -suo motu- powers which can be exercised within the period of 5 years of the date of the order of assignment, apart from the provisions made under rule 11 (3) (a) and hence, nothing prevented him from entertaining the revision petitions, though at the instance of the petitioners.

(3.) SINCE common points are involved in all these petitions, a common counter-affidavit is filed wherein it is stated that all the revision petitions filed were rejected as time-barred, and that Land Commissioner has no power to review his own orders and furthermore, when a fixed time-limit is prescribed under the Rules he cannot go beyond the roles. Rules, by themselves not contemplating a personal hearing, the rejection of the petition without being heard, had not resulted in any illegal orders being passed.