AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition against the order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the second
respondent-Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in S.R.P. No. 22 of 1998, pursuant to which, the impugned order
dated 30.11.2006 has been passed by the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.
The main plea taken by the petitioner is that after inordinate delay of more than 24 years, it was not open for the Tribunal or the other authority
to entertain and pass orders on a suo motu revision application.
The brief facts of the case are that the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 58 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the
Act''), was notified on 2.5.1962, prescribing the ceiling limits for holding the lands as on 6.4.1960. One Late R.K.M. Mohammed Abubacker held
the lands more than the ceiling limits as on 6.4.1960. The said land owner has settled some of his landed properties in favour of his two unmarried
daughters on 27.7.1960, i.e. prior to the date of Notification of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 58 of 1961,
which was notified on 2.5.1962. However, as the date of settlement, i.e. 27.7.1960 was shown to be after the cut-off date of 6.4.1960, the then
Authorised Officer passed the order u/s 22 of the Act, treating the transfer made by the land owner and his mother Jainambugani Ammal as null
and void and treated the transfer made by one B. Fathima as valid for determining the holdings of the land owner.
After allowing 47.25 Std. Acres as retainable and an extent of 25.36 Std. Acres as surplus, the draft statement u/s 10(1) of the Act was
published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The land owner preferred an appeal to the Land Tribunal, Nagapattinam in C.M.A. No. 29 of
1966 against the order of the Authorised Officer and the said appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of the Authorised Officer.
Thereafter, the land owner moved before this Court in C.R.P. No. 249 of 1967. This Court, by order dated 21.12.1970, remanded the case
back to the Land Tribunal, Nagapattinam, for fresh disposal. Accordingly, the case was registered to its original number by the Land Tribunal,
Nagapattinam and after hearing the arguments of the Advocate of the Land Owner and the Government Pleader, by judgment dated 17.8.1971,
the Land Tribunal remanded the case back to the Authorised Officer, Nagapattinam for fresh enquiry.
Based on the above order, after enquiry, a fresh revised order was passed u/s 22 of the Act by the Authorised Officer on 6.3.1972, declaring
the transaction made between the land owner and his wife in between 6.4.1960 and 2.10.1962 as valid, and based on enquiry u/s 10(5), an order
was passed on 6.5.1972, on the basis of which, final statement u/s 12 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee on 26.7.1972. In
the final statement u/s 12, it was shown as Sreedhana properties of the daughters.
Based on the final statement, a proposal u/s 18(1) of the Act was prepared and forwarded to the Land Reforms Officer, Chennai, and the
Government in turn passed orders in G.O.Ms. No. 470, dated 12.2.1973, but it was not published in the Government Gazette.
The land owner preferred appeal against the order u/s 10(5), dated 6.5.1972 before the Land Tribunal, Nagapattinam, and the appeal was
allowed and the case was remanded back to the Authorised Officer, Nagapattinam, for fresh enquiry, by order dated 13.2.1974. This time, the
Authorised Officer, after fresh enquiry, passed order u/s 10(5) of the Act on 18.5.1974, treating the properties acquired by the unmarried
daughters as Sreedhana properties. Based on that, a revised final statement u/s 12 of the Act was prepared and published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette on 9.10.1974, declaring an extent of 3.75 Std. Acres as surplus. It is stated that the surplus 3.75 Std. Acres of lands were
handed over to the State by the daughters of the land owner.
The Land Commissioner was empowered to call for the records suo motu to pass revisional order u/s 82 of the Act. Under Rule 62 of the
Rules framed under the said Act, the period of limitation was prescribed to prefer revision u/s 82 of the Act and also for entertaining a suo motu
revision u/s 82.
It appears that Section 83 of the Act was introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1984, where under, the Special Appellate Tribunal, of its own
motion or on application, was empowered to call for and examine the records of the Authorised Officer, the Land Board, the Land Commissioner
or the Land Tribunal, in respect of any proceeding under the Act to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness or
legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein. Under the proviso(s) to Section 83, for exercising such revisional power, it was
stipulated that every application to the Special Appellate Tribunal for exercising the powers under this Section, shall be preferred within such
period as may be prescribed.
Though the Land Commissioner had suo motu power to call for and examine the records of any Authorised Officer in respect of proceedings
u/s 82, and he has to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceeding or correctness/legality/propriety of any such decision, but since final
order was passed in favour of the daughters and it was published in the Gazette on 9.10.1974, no revisional power was exercised u/s 82 of the
Act.
Section 83 of the Act, as referred to above, came into effect in 1984, i.e. after ten years of the final publication as was made in favour of the
daughters on 9.10.1974. Even thereafter, the Special Appellate Tribunal did not choose to exercise its power. After 24 years, the Special
Appellate Tribunal exercised its power u/s 83 and passed the impugned order on 30.4.1998 and set aside the order passed in 1974 and referred
the matter to the Authorised Officer, i.e. Asst. Commissioner (Land Reforms), who passed the impugned order on 30.11.2006.
It is stated that in the meantime, the original owner Mr. Mohd. Abubacker died in the year 1987. The heir of the land owner, i.e. the petitioner
contested the matter. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), by the impugned order dated 30.11.2006, having declared that an extent of
22.11 Std. Acres as surplus, u/s 1 and 2.59 Std. Acres as surplus u/s 4 from the family holdings of the land owner, allowing 30.00 Std. Acres in
Section 1 and 17.25 Std. Acres in Section 6, challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred the Writ Petition.
It has been brought to our notice that Section 83, by which the Special Appellate Tribunal was empowered to pass the revisional order suo
motu by satisfying itself as to the regularity or correctness/legality/propriety of any decision passed or order made therein, has since been omitted
by Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 2003. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from the fact that the suo motu revisional power exercised
by the Special Appellate Tribunal u/s 83 is barred by limitation, such power was exercised during the interregnum period, i.e. after the substitution
of Section 83 in 1984, which was deleted in 2003.
Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), while referring
to the background history of the case, submitted that there was no limitation prescribed u/s 83, and therefore, the Special Appellate Tribunal was
well within the jurisdiction to suo motu entertain a revision petition, even after 24 years, to satisfy itself as to the regularity of any proceeding or
correctness/legality/propriety of any such decision or order passed by the authority. Learned Additional Government Pleader relied on a decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of "" Ashok Kumar Pandey and Others Vs. State of Bihar, , in support of his contentions.
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records and the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court.
The question of suo motu enquiry u/s 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1976, fell for consideration before the
Supreme Court in the case of "" Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, . In the said case, while the Supreme Court noticed that
the suo motu power u/s 84-C of the said Act was not exercised within a reasonable time, held that where there was no time limit prescribed for
exercise of power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time.
In the case of "" XL Visions Vs. The National Highways and Another, , a Division Bench of this Court held that where a statute or a Rule is
silent about the time limit for doing an act or complying with certain formality, then such act or formality should be done within a reasonable time.
It is mandatory on the part of the competent authority to perform his statutory obligations within a reasonable time and that the reasonable time
is not be viewed as one which deprives the right of the parties to document, causing injustice, was the observation of a Full Bench of this Court in
the case of ""Karmegam. G. v. The Joint Sub-Registrar, IV, Madurai"" reported in 2007 (5) CTC 737 (FB).
In the case of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Collie Sangham Vs. K. Suresh Reddy and Others, , the Supreme Court held that, ""Where the
expression ""at any time"" is available in a statute, it would imply that the duty shall be performed within a reasonable time, depending on the facts
and circumstances of the case and it has to be construed contextually and reasonably and not in an unguided or arbitrary manner.
In the case of Government of India Vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras and Others, , the Apex Court observed that, ""In the absence of
any period of limitation, it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period"".
Section 82 of the Act empowers the Land Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any Authorised Officer in respect of any
proceeding under the provisions mentioned therein, and for entertaining such revision application, a time limit has been prescribed under Rule 62 of
the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962, as quoted hereunder:
Rule 62: Time limit for presenting an application for revision to the Land Commissioner u/s 82: (1) Every application to the Land Commissioner for
revision u/s 82 shall be presented within sixty days from the date on which the proceeding, decision or order to which the application relates was
communicated to the applicant:
Provided that the Land Commissioner may admit an application presented within thirty days after the said period if he is satisfied that the applicant
had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period.
(2) The power of suo motu revision u/s 82 shall be exercised by the Land Commissioner within a period of five years, from the date of the order,
decision or proceedings referred to in the said section.
Similar power of its own motion or on application, is vested with the Special Appellate Tribunal, u/s 83(1), as was existing and since deleted,
which reads as follows:
Section 83: Revision by Special Appellate Tribunal--(1) The Special Appellate Tribunal may of its own motion or on application, call for and
examine the record of the authorized officer, the Land Board, the Land Commissioner or the Land Tribunal in respect of any proceeding under this
Act to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein,
and if, in any case it appears to the Special Appellate Tribunal that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted
for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly:
Provided that every application to the Special Appellate Tribunal for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within such
period as may be prescribed:
Provided further that the Special Appellate Tribunal may admit an application after the expiration of prescribed period if it is satisfied that the party
concerned has sufficient cause for not presenting it within such period:
Provided also that this section shall not apply to any proceeding of the Land Tribunal in respect of which appeal lies u/s 79 to the Special Appellate
Tribunal.
(2) No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under Sub-section (1), unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his
representations.
From the first proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act, while it will be evident that a provision has been made to exercise such power on such
application within a specified period as may be prescribed; under the second proviso, provision has been made for admission of such application
after condoning the delay, after expiry of the prescribed period. But inspite of such intention of the Legislature to prescribe the limitation, it appears
that no Rule has been framed prescribing the period of limitation for exercising the suo motu power on its own motion or on an application u/s 83
of the Act and the respondents are now claiming advantage of their latches and inaction in not prescribing limitation, by taking plea that no limitation
has been prescribed.
The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of ""Padmavathi. R. v. Land Commer., (Land Records), Chepauk"" reported in 2001 (3) CTC 605 (DB). In that case, the authority constituted
under the Act passed orders dropping proceedings against a person after holding that the gift deeds executed by him between the date of
commencement of such Act and date on which Act was notified, were valid; such order was passed on 1.12.1973; the Authorised Officer passed
another order on 18.11.1988 and set aside the order dated 1.12.1973, holding that excess land had been held by the person; the person preferred
appeal against such 1988 order before the Land Tribunal; during the pendency of such appeal and during the pendency of another appeal filed by
the land owner against another order passed in 1991, modifying the extent of excess land, the Director of Land Reforms filed suo motu revision
before the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the order passed in 1973; the Land Tribunal allowed such revision on the ground that existence of such
order would lead to technical objection regarding 1988 and 1991 order; in the said case, this Court, while holding that the proceedings filed by the
Director of Land Reforms was nothing but revision and the suo motu powers were utilised only to circumvent the issue of limitations prescribed
under Rule 62, the Court further held that the suo motu powers cannot be used to pre-empt particular question and bye-pass the decision which is
legally due from the other Tribunal.
In the case of "" Ashok Kumar Pandey and Others Vs. State of Bihar, , the Supreme Court merely noticed that there was no period prescribed
under the statute to re-open the case, and thereby, observed that in the absence of any time limit, the action taken by the Collector in order to
ascertain actual/eligible land holdings, cannot be faulted with.
In the present case, we have noticed that Section 83 of the Act stipulates prescription of time limit for entertaining a revision application or for
exercising suo motu powers u/s 83 of the Act. Merely because no Rule was framed fixing the limitation period for preferring such application or for
exercising suo motu powers u/s 83 of the Act, because of inaction on the part of the State authorities, the intention of the Legislature to prescribe a
limitation for exercising power u/s 83 period cannot be given a go-by. If no specific time limit is prescribed under the Rules, inspite of the first and
second provisos to Section 83(1) of the Act, for exercising the power on an application filed by a person or suo motu, not only the reasons to be
recorded for entertaining such application after long delay, in normal course, it cannot be entertained or exercised such power suo motu, if such
application is not filed within a reasonable time.
We have already noticed different decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein it was held that in the absence of limitation period prescribed for
exercising the power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time and the expression ""at any time"" would imply that the duty
shall be performed within a reasonable time. We have also noticed the provisos to Section 83(1), where prescription has been made to prescribe
the period of limitation. It has also been noticed that inspite of specific provision made under proviso to Section 83(1), the State authorities have
failed to prescribe a period of limitation. Now, even the provisions of Section 83 has been deleted by amendment made in the year 2003.
Therefore, we hold that the authority can only exercise such power u/s 83(1) of the Act within a reasonable period and in the absence of any
explanation given under the second proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act, no application can be entertained, nor suo motu power can be exercised
u/s 83(1) of the Act beyond the reasonable period.
In the present case, we have seen that the competent authority gave finality to the order on 9.10.1974, and thereafter, no revisional order was
passed u/s 82 of the Act. The land as was declared surplus was handed over to the State as back as in the year 1975. After 24 years of such
order, without explaining the delay in entertaining the suo motu revision application u/s 83(1) of the Act, it was not open for the revisional authority
to exercise such power, as was made vide order dated 30.4.1998.
For the reasons stated above, while we set aside the order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the second respondent-Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in S.R.P. No. 22 of 1998, the consequential order passed by the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner,
Land Reforms, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District, dated 30.11.2006, is also set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.