High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 07 MAD CK 0146

Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) vs District Revenue Officer, (Land Tribunal), A. Seethalakshmi, A. Arumainathan and T. Haridass

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Chandru, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 11564 of 2004

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 330 words

K. Chandru, J.—This writ petition arises out of SRP. No. 4 of 2001 filed before the Tamil nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal,

Chennai (for short SAT). The Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Villupuram is the petitioner.

2.

In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 11564 of 2004. Even

during the pendency of the SRP before the SAT the fourth respondent got himself impleaded in M.P. No. 97 of 2001 dated 24.07.2001. The writ

petition purporting to challenge the order of the District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal Chennai-5 made in Lt. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.

12/98 dated 01.03.1999. It is against the said order the revision was filed u/s 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land)

Act, 1961 (for short Act). The revision was not filed as enjoined upon in Rule 26(5) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Special Appellate Tribunal)

Rules. Though an application was filed to condone the delay, there is no order of the Tribunal found. Even otherwise, this Court is not trapped by

such limitation, but yet the contesting respondents have not been served till date. On the short ground the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

3.

Even otherwise the impugned order of the Land Tribunal in the Court of District Revenue Officer, the authority entertained the appeal u/s 78 of

the Act against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli dated 30.03.998. As against the order passed u/s 78

of the Act, an appeal lies u/s 79 to the Special Appellate Tribunal. It has been made clear that under the third proviso to Section 83 of the Act no

revision will lie in case where there is an appeal provided to the SAT u/s 79.

4.

In the light of the above facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.