V SELLAPPAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that he is a cultivating tenant within the ambit of Act X of 1969 and that the lands belonged to 4th respondent. Petitioner-s name was entered in the Registers, and finally published in the District Gazette on 24th May, 1971, as a tenant. Nearly after six years, 4th respondent had filed an application before third respondent for rectification, which was dismissed. THE appeal preferred to second respondent was also rejected. A further revision filed to first respondent was first dismissed for default by order, dated 27th July, 1978, but later on it was restored, and ultimately by the impugned order dated 20th June, 1975, the revision petition was allowed resulting in the removal of the name of the petitioner from the records as a tenant, Aggrieved against the said order, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) MR. V. Ramajagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioner, first submits that having dismissed the revision petition for default, the Revisional Authority has no jurisdiction to restore the application, and thereafter to dispose of it on merits. He refers to section 7 of the Act, which according to him, nowhere deals with a power invested in the Revisional Authority to revise an order, which had been already rejected. He states that there being no power of review invested in the said Authority, the impugned order is illegal. He also relies upon rule 13 of the Rules framed under the Act, which only contemplates the power to entertain application for revision presented beyond time.

(3.) THESE contentions of the petitioner are refuted by alleging that the order, that is now sought to be quashed is not the order of restoration, but the final order passed on merits, and as the petitioner has lost on merits, he has now come forward to claim that, there could have been no restoration at all.