GNANAPRAKASAM Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CHIDAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who got his name registered as a cultivating tenant under section 4(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 claims that first respondent while passing the impugned order dated 4th February, 1984, had exceeded his jurisdiction conferred under the Act. Fourth respondent, who has since been impleaded, claims that, he is the real owner of the property as per will dated 20th February, 1984, and that behind his back, as if third respondent is the owner of the property, petitioner had secured an order illegally on 18th August, 1983, recording himself as the cultivating tenant. This collusive order is not binding upon him, as he had no notice of such a claim.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order was passed by the first respondent as an Appellate Authority, under the Act, and under section 6 no suo motu power having been conferred upon him, when he could exercise appellate powers only at the instance of parties and not on his own, the order is illegal. He would state that the Record Officer finding that he had made an illegal order or an erroneous order, he could not by addressing the Appellate Authority, get his order set aside by suo motu powers being exercised.

(3.) Under section 6, there is no suo motu power conferred upon the Appellate Authority. Being well aware that such a power is not available, it is unfortunate that first respondent in the concluding paragraph should claim that he is exercising suo motu revisional powers. Having been constituted as an Appellate Authority, how he could exercise revisional power, he is unable to explain. While exercising powers under the Act, he is fully aware that there is a revision provided under section 7 of the Act, and such a revisional authority is a different authority and not himself. Hence, being fully aware of absence of power, he had passed the impugned order illegally.