E A SWAMY Vs. LAND COMMISSIONER MADRAS 5

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 43 of 1981 hereinafter referred to as the act. THE appellant is the owner of the lands in respect of which proceedings under the Act got initiated and they culminated in the publication of the final statement under S. 12 of the Act on 30. 7. 1980. As against the final statement, the appellant preferred a revision to the first respondent under section 82 of the act. THE final statement was served on the appellant on 29. 8. 1980. THE revision to the first respondent was preferred on 16. 12. 1980. As per Rule 62 (i) along with the proviso of the rules framed under the Act, the time limit for preferring a revision under section 82 of the Act would be sixty days from the date of service of the final statement, namely, 29. 8. 1980 and the first respondent would have the power to condone the delay of thirty days, if sufficient cause therefor is made out. THE admitted position is the preferring of the revision by the appellant on 16. 12. 1980 was beyond this period of ninety days. However, the revision was entertained by the first respondent and stay was granted pending the final disposal of the revision. According to the appellant, his counsel, who preferred the revision, was waiting for an intimation with regard to a date for submitting arguments on the revision, but his counsel got on 19. 5. 81 the order dated 14. 5. 1981 of the first respondent dismissing the revision as time barred. Complaining that this is against the principles of natural justice and further putting forth a plea that under Rule 62 (ii) of the Rules, the first respondent ought to have exercised suo motu powers of revision, the appellant came to this Court by way of W. P. No. 3177 of 1981, impugning the order of the first respondent dated 14-5-1981. Balasubramanyan, J. who heard the writ petition for admission, found that the revision preferred by the appellant was beyond time, even taking note of the power of condonation available to the first respondent under the proviso to Rule 62 (i) of the Rules, and hence did not find a warrant to interfere in writ jurisdiction and the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. THE writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) MR. Mohan Parasaran, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that valuable rights of property are involved in the matter and the points taken in the revision are substantive in nature, requiring investigation into and adjudication over them on merits; and the appellant was never given to understand and had no notice that the revision, which was entertained earlier, would be thrown out subsequently, on the technical ground of bar of limitation and if the appellant had an inkling about the attitude of the first respondent on this question, he would have certainly pleaded for the exercise of suo motu power of revision, and the pronouncements of this Court, in matters involving arguable points, always favoured a decision on merits rather than throwing out the revision on the technical plea of bar of limitation.