K MOHAMMEDKUTTY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 5393 of 1983 decided on 11.7.1983.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner-appellant to the effect that the land in dispute was forest land was examined on merits by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur in S.R.No. 7 of 1978 on 25.5.1978 and further in appeal by the Director of Survey and Settlement, Madras in A.1 No. 5 of 1980 on 8.12.1980 and rejected. THE appellant filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras on 23.1.1982. THE Commissioner, Land Administration found that the revision petition was barred by 315 days. He also found that the appellant has failed to adduce convincing reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 315 days. Consequently, the revision petition was rejected by him as time barred on 2.2.1982. Subsequently, it transpires from the record that the appellant filed yet another revision petition before the Government, for which admittedly no provision is made either in the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1969 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969) herein after referred to as the Act) on in the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). That revision petition was also rejected by the Government, the rejection of the Rejection Petition was challenged through the writ petition. THE appellant had, however, not called in question the earlier orders of the assistant Settlement Officer, Director of Survey and Settlement and the commissioner of Land Administration. THE appellant filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his revision petition on the ground that the basis for rejection of the same, viz., that it was barred by limitation was erroneous. THE plea was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.