Raju, J. - (1.) S. T. A. No. 50 of 1986: The above appeal has been filed under Sec. 50 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, 1963. The lands in question are indisputably comprised in a dharmadayam grant confirmed by the Government in T. D. No. 1075. The inam has been notified under Sec. 1 (4) of the Act with effect from 15. 2. 1965 from which date towards the inam stood abolished. Since there was no claim, suo motu enquiry was initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar, III (SB), Tiruchi and there has been due publication of the notice in terms of the Act and the Rules. Only the respondent temple applied and after considering the claims on merits, the original Authority directed the issue of patta in favour of the respondent temple under Sec. 8 (2) (ii) read with Sec. 11 (2) (b) of the Act.
(2.) THE appellant herein filed C. A. No. 4 of 1985 before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Trichy (Sub Court, Trichy ). THE appeal against the order dated 22. 8. 1969 granting patta in favour of the respondent/ temple as noticed above, came to be filed on 19. 6. 1985. THE stand taken for the appellant before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal below was that the appellant as not issued with any notice of the proceedings or orders passed by the original authority on 22. 8. 1969 and that therefore, the period or limitation prescribed under Sec. 30 cannot run against the appellant. Reliance appears to have been placed by the appellant on a decision of this Court reported in pandurangu Chetti and another v. THE Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of North Arcot, 91 L. W. 368. Learned Tribunal below was of the view that the said decision will have no application in view of the fact that unlike in the reported case, the appellant herein has been put on notice by the respondent temple of the grant of patta and in spite of the same, the appellant was indifferent without getting activated and being vigilant in taking steps to obtain a copy or file an appeal within a reasonable time from the date of knowledge of the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the appeal filed is barred by limitation. Hence the above appeal. Mr. Rajarathinam, learned counsel Appearing for the appellant relied upon yet another decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Rangasamy Naidu v. Veerappan and others, (1994)1 M. L. J. 410 to contend that the the indirect knowledge of enquiry and grant of ryotwari patta to some one else is no ground to deny right of notice to a party entitled under the provisions of the Act. The Division Bench, no doubt, in the said decision came to the rescue of the appellant in that case taking into account the fact that the moment he was attributed with knowledge of the passing of the order, the appellant therein moved for a certified copy of the order granting patta and immediately thereafter pursued the matter on appeal. The same is not the position here, as rightly contended by Mr. Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ temple. After the order were passed in 1969, the temple on 12. 1. 1978 informed the appellant about the order passed by the authority granting patta in favour of the temple and in spite of the same, the appellant adopted an indifferent attitude in not diligently taking any steps thereafter to prosecute the matter further by obtaining the certified copy of the proceedings from the competent authority. Consequently, we are unable to apply the ratio of the decision in Rangasamy Naidu's case, (1994)I M. L. J. 410, for the case on hand. No reasonable or acceptable explanation has been given for the serious lapse committed even after knowledge of the orders granting patta in favour of the temple. We see no error in the order of the tribunal below, in rejecting the appeal before it, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No costs. C. R. RNo. 900 of 1988: The Appellant in S. T. A. No. 50 of 1996 has also filed separately a revision in C. R. P. No. 900 of 1988 under art. 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the authorities below. If the claim of the petitioner in the revision came to be rejected for proper and valid reasons and the rejection of the statutory appeal on the ground of limitation is also found to be in order, it is not permissible to allow the very same person to have recourse to the provisions contained under art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The provision contained under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is not meant to override the specific statutory provisions under special enactments and destroy the rights of parties acquired under the scheme and provisions of the Act. Countenancing such a claim would amount to allowing the process of law to be subterfuged. The negligence and indifference on the part of the appellant which disentitled him to the relief in the statutory appeal is, equally, in our view, sufficient to dissuade us from extending indulgence under Art. 227 of the Constitution also in favour of the appellant. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the view that there are no merits in the above revision and the same in also hereby dismissed. No costs. A782 . ;