BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11/11/2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
W.P.(MD)No.10124 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008
T.Amuthan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Special Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai-5.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.
5.T.Rajamani
6.T.Gnanadoss ... Respondents
Prayer
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the impugned order issued by the first respondent herein in
K4/6012/2008 dated 19.03.2008 and quash the same and further direct the first
respondent to entertain the petitioner's review petition dated 18.02.2008 along
with the condone delay petition on merits.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Vallinayagam
^For RR1 to R4 ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu
Special Government Pleader
:ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.R.Janakiramulu,
learned Special Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the respondents
1 to 4. In view of the order, which is going to be passed here under, no notice
to the respondents 5 and 6 is necessary.
2. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the
petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the
writ petition, is to the effect the the petitioner filed second revision before
the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk,
Chennai -5 as against the order passed in the revision petition by the District
Revenue Officer with an application to condone the delay in filing the second
revision before the first respondent; the said Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration, who vide his proceedings dated 19.03.2008
in K4/6012/2008 rejected the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground that the
application is a time barred one. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such
an order, this writ petition is focussed.
3. At the time of hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader produced
G.O.Ms.No.409 dated 02.07.2008; the operative portion of it would run thus:
“In the above circumstances, the Government examined the proposal of the
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration in detail, and
decided to accept Amendment to R.S.O.31.8(A) as mentioned in para 3 above.
Accordingly, the Government direct the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of
Land Administration that all ongoing enquiries may be carried on to the logical
conclusion and orders issued. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration should ensure that in all cases where enquiries are not
commenced, they may be returned back, with direction to approach Competent Court
of Law”.
4. It is therefore clear that the second revisional power vested with the
first respondent has been repealed and in such a case the petitioner cannot
process his claim before the first respondent. At this juncture, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that in such an event, liberty may be
given to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. It goes without saying
that the civil Court is the ultimate authority to decide on the right of the
party relating to the right or title over the land and accordingly he is at
liberty to process his claim before the competent Civil Court.
4. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
SMN/DP
To
1.The Special Commissioner,
Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai-5.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Kovilpatti Taluk,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.