PICHAI AMMAL Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends, that since the case was remanded by the Appellate Authority, the revisional authority could not have decided the case on merits, as the order under revision was one of remand. In case the revisional authority found that me remand order suffers from illegality or material irregularity, he was bound to remand the case to the appellate authority for decision on merits without deciding the case himself on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Kaluvaroya Pillai v. Ganesa Pandithan, A.I.R. 1969 Mad 248, by a learned single Judge of mis Court.

(2.) SEC .7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Right Act reads thus:

(3.) SO far as the power of the revisional authority is concerned, as we have observed above, he has got unlimited power to pass appropriate orders on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no bar for the revisional authority to decide the matter on merits or to remand or to take additional evidence to render justice between the parties. The above view of ours finds favour with the decision reported in Sellappan v. District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, (1982)1 M.L.J. 281, with which we fully agree. The observations made in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Kaluvaroya Pillai v. Ganesa Pandithan, A.I.R. 1969 Mad. 248, wherein the context of the statutory provision of 0.43, Rule l(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, while interpreting the statutory provisions and - thus, the law said down in Kaluvaroya Pillai -s case, is not attracted to the facts of this case.