VELAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the respondent, in his proceedings, dated 15.03.2008, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the properties situated in Survey Nos.25/6, 25/7, 25/32, 25/34 and 25/35 at Idayarvattam, Pallathivayal Group, Aranthangi Town and Taluk are his self-acquired properties. The petitioner is in possession of the said properties from 05.10.1993 from the date of purchase. Survey No.25/7 was wrongly recorded in the revenue records as 'water body'. Therefore, he made a representation to the Settlement Officer on 22.06.2008 to change the patta in his name. The Settlement Officer, through his order, dated 01.11.1999 changed the patta in the name of the petitioner. On 31.03.2003, the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement reassured the change of patta in the name of the petitioner. One Veerasamy had preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi against the order of the said Assistant Director. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi cancelled the order of the Assistant Director, through his proceedings, dated 19.01.2006, without following the principles of natural justice and without perusing the records. The petitioner preferred a writ petition W.P.(MD)No.1809 of 2006 before this court, challenging the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi. By an order, dated 03.08.2006, this court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority. After receiving the said order copy, the petitioner became sick and therefore, he was bedridden for months together. Consequently, he could not file the revision before the respondent in time. However, he filed a revision with a delay of 290 days and also with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 290 days. The respondent rejected the revision petition filed on the ground that the same is filed with a delay and also on the reason that there is no merit in the revision. Aggrieved against the said order of the respondent, the present writ petition is filed before this court.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved, in this case, is squarely covered by a decision of this court reported in (2007)7 MLJ 409 in the case of S.Ramachandran vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai and another as well as an unreported decision of this court made in W.P.No.1047 of 2006, dated 22.03.2006. In both these decisions, this court has held that the authority has got jurisdiction to condone the delay in preferring the revision petition by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act.