M DEVARAJA PADAYACHI Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition several points have been taken, Mr. R. Ganesan, counsel for the petitioner, confines to only one point being that, the District Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction under Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Lands) Rules, 1965 to take suo motu action when he has already exercised appellate powers under rule 10 of the Rules, and hence the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the District Revenue Officer had earlier dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 27th April, 1977. IT is thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who by order, dated 22nd June, 1978, directed the District Revenue Officer to take suo motu action. A show-cause notice on 30th August, 1978, was issued by the District Revenue Officer, who had later on passed the impugned order, setting aside the order of assignment, dated 30th June, 1976. Mr. R. Ganesan, counsel for the petitioner, contends that when in a given case an appeal had been already heard by the District Revenue Officer as per rule 11 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, he has no jurisdiction to initiate suo motu action, and if circumstances warrant it, it may be taken either by the Commissioner of Land Revenue or the Government, as the case may be. He refers to rule 11 (2), it being: -

(3.) THE contention raised by Mr. Ganesan by reference to the opening words in rule 11 (2) has force, because, such a provision is not made in respect of suo motu powers exercised by the Land Commissioner and the Government. Evidently, a limited restriction had been placed on the suo motu powers of the District Revenue Officer, because such a provision made, excludes bis right to exercise suo motu powers in such of those cases in no respect the necessary or requisite powers of the other authorities to exercise suo motu powers, over the same matter during the same period, had not been unprovided for. In respect of the Land Commissioner, he may at any time within five years of the date of the order of assignment, exercise suo motu powers. Equally in a case where no appeal has been filed, within three years from the date of the order of assignment, the District Revenue Officer himself can exercise suo motu powers (presently called -appellate authority-) . As for Government, as per the amended rule, at any time after one year from the date of the Land Commissioner-s order or within five years, from the date of order of assignment, whichever is less, it can exercise suo motu powers. Hence, by accepting the construction put by Mr. Ganesan, in no manner, the suo motu powers to be exercised to set aside erroneous orders, is no. deprived of, for the State.