STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE (L REFS) Vs. C CHANDRA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals have been filed by the State against the order of S. Mohan, J. in W.P. Nos. 772 and 773 of 1977. W.P. No. 772 of 1977 has been filed by Thiru Chandramohan and W.P. No. 773 of 1977 has been filed by his father Thiru Venkatakrishnan for seeking issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue rejecting the revisions filed by the respective petitioners on the ground that they had been filed beyond the time limit of sixty days prescribed under the rules. The learned single Judge passed a short order directing the Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue, to take up the revisions after condoning the delay and deal with the same on merits. Disputing the correctness of this order, the State has preferred these appeals.

(2.) The limited facts which require to be set out before the contentions of the appellants are gone into, are as under: Thiru Venkatakrishnan was found to have a total holding of 47.26 ordinary acres equivalent to 26.96 standard acres as on 15.2.1970. After allowing an exemption to the extent of 8.50 ordinary acres equivalent to 3.37 standard acres under Sections 3(22) and 73(viii) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the net extent of holdings of the landholder was arrived at 38.79 ordinary acres equivalent to 24.43 standard acres. He was allowed to retain 15 standard acres and the draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 24.10.1973. The notification set out that 12.85 ordinary acres equivalent to 9.43 standard acres constituted his excess holding. The draft statement is alleged to have been served on the landowner by affixture on 4.2.1974. The landowner filed on objection under Section 10(5) of the Act on 4.3.1974. His objections were considered and orders under Section 10(5) of the Act were passed on 22.4.1974. Certain modifications were carried out in the abovesaid order and by reason of it, the extent of surplus was reduced to 11.38 ordinary acres equivalent to 8.59 standard acres as against 12.85 ordinary acres equivalent to 9.43 standard acres notified in the draft statement. The final statement under Section 12 of the Act was prepared and duly published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 5.6.1974. This statement is also said to have been served on Venkatakrishnan and his son Chandramohan by affixture on 5.9.1974. The notification under Section 18(1) of the Act was published in the gazette on 4.12.1974. The lands notified as surplus were taken possession of by the Government on 9.1.1975.

(3.) Against the publication of the final statement under Section 12 of the Act, Venkatakrishnan and Chandramohan filed revision petitions before the Land Commissioner. The Land Commissioner dismissed the two revision petitions on 31.12.1976 on the ground that they had been preferred beyond the time limit of sixty days prescribed under the rules. In order to assail the dismissal of the revisions in the abovesaid manner, Venkatakrishnan and Chandramohan have filed W.P. Nos. 772 and 773 of 1977. Without giving reasons for sustaining the contentions of the writ petitioners, the learned single Judge has directed the Land Commissioner to condone the delay and take the revisions on file and dispose them of on merits. Since according to the State, there is no provision either under the Act or under the Rules framed thereunder for the delay being condoned, the learned single Judge's order is assailed and therefore these writ appeals have been filed.