AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question in this case is whether in respect of a revision from an order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta u/s 11 of Madras
Act 26 of 1948, there is in him or the Director of Settlement the power to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Ismail J. held that there is
no such power. We are in entire agreement with this view. A specific rule has been framed under the rule-making power provided in Section 67 on
the reference to Section 11 that the revision petition to the Settlement Officer or a revision to the Director should be filed within a specified time.
The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been expressly excluded. That means neither the Settlement Officer nor the Director of
Settlements has the power u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.
It is true that there is no limitation provided for a revision u/s 5 or Section 7 of the Act. But the order in the instant, case will not fall within the
purview of the power u/s 5 or Section 7, because of the specific provision providing for a revision against the orders passed u/s 11 of the Act. The
special excludes the general.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.