JUDGMENT
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.
1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the learned single Judge who while dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent, however, made an order which indicated that this was pre-eminently a case in which the Land Commissioner could consider the exercise of his suo motu power of revision under Section 82 read with Rule 62(ii) of the Rules. The respondent herein and the petitioner before the learned single judge is a public religious trust called Sri Muthu Ganapadigal Veda Patasala, Thiruvayyaru (herein referred to as ‘the Patasala Trust. Admittedly, the trust owned some agricultural lands to the extent of 14.76 standard acres. In proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 9.76 acres of land was found to be surplus. A final statement came to be made on 7.2.197 9 which was served On the Trust on 14.3.197 9. After the publication of the final statement, a notification under Section 18(1) came to be made on 27.6.1979. It appears that it was only on 18.9.1979 that a revision came to be filed on behalf of the Trust. That revision application has been rejected by the Land commissioner.
2. Before the Land Commissioner the case put up was that the Trust was not only running a Veda Patasala but also a hostel and consequently the Trust was entitled to lawfully possess 25 standard acres of land. It appears that the Trust deed itself could not be produced. The Land Commissioner seems to have taken the view that the hostel itself did not seem to exist on the date of the commencement of the Act, namely, 1.3.1972 and that in the absence of the Trust Deed, it could not be assuomed that there was a provision for a hostel earlier. He rejected the revision petition filed beyond limitation prescribed by rule 62 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules). This order was challenged by the trust in a writ petition filed in this court.
3. The learned Judge who disposed of the writ petition after referring to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Vedapatasala Trust, Sooramangalam v. State of Tamil Nadu in which it was held that the imparting of instructions in Vedas and Agamas was of religious nature and, therefore, whenever a trust which is of a public nature provides for the imparting of instructions in Vedas and Agamas, that will be religious trust, so as to attract the exemption under Section 2(1)(ii) of the Act, took the view that the order disclosed that the revision petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that it was out of time. Since no fault could be found with the position that the revision petition was admittedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the writ petition came to be dismissed. But the learned Judge, made the following observations:
Since there is a possibility that the petitioner would come within the category of Section 2(1)(ii) of the Act as per the pronouncement of this Court referred to above, in my view, this is a fit case where the first respondent could consider the exercise of suo motu powers of revision under Rule 62(ii) of the Rules framed under the Act.
4. Subsequently, this appeal is filed by the Land Commissioner and the Authorised Officer against this part of the direction. The learned Government Pleader has vehemently argued before us that the revision petition having been filed beyond the period of limitation and the learned Judge having upheld the dismissal of the revision petition on the ground of limitation, he was in error in making the observations in the concluding part of the order.
5. Now it is difficult to see how the Land Commissioner who was functioning under the provisions of the Act could find any fault with the directions given by the learned Judge. The power of the authorities under the Act is to determine the surplus land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In other words, it is the bound en duty of the authorities to determine the surplus lands only in the case of owners who are covered by the provisions of the Act. If the Act itself does not apply in the case of any particular land, the orders determining the surplus land in the case of such lands would amount to acting without jurisdiction. The Land Commissioner as the highest officer in the hierarchy of officers under the Act must, therefore, consider it his duty to see that the Act is properly implemented. A proper implementation of the Act will also take in the fact that it is being made applicable only to such cases as fall within the four corners of the Act. If the Land Commissioner comes across instances or where instances are brought to his notice, that the Act, is being made applicable to lands which are not covered by the provisions of the Act, it becomes his duty to exercise his revisional jurisdiction suo motu and to remedy the situation which is brought about by the subordinate officers ignoring the express mandate of the Act that it, is not applicable in respect of certain Lands. Section 2 of the Act specifies religious institution or religious trust of public nature as being excluded from the provisions of the Act subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 6. None of those two provisions are relevant for the purpose of the present case. Therefore, where a case is put forward before the authorities under the Act including the Commissioner that the Trust is a public Trust, and there is good authority of this Court to hold that an institution which imparts instructions in Vedas and agamas is a religious institution of a public nature; it is their bounden duty to make an enquiry as to whether the Act is at all applicable to the lands belonging to such an institution. It is exactly this which the Land Commissioner was called upon to do by the revision petition filed on behalf of the present respondent. The fact that the institution in question imparted instructions in Vedas and Agamas does not belong to any individual. It belongs to a Trust but the question as to whether the Act is applicable at all does not seem to be a question which has been canvassed before the appropriate authorities. What was canvassed before the Land Commissioner was that there being a hostel, the extent of land which the institution was entitled to retain was 25 acres. The crucial question which falls for determination in a case like the present one is whether the Act is at all applicable to the case. This is a question which goes to the root of the matter. As we have pointed out above, since the authorities under the Act are entitled to deal with only those lands which fall within the purview of the Act, the learned Judge was, in our view,’ right when he expressed ‘the view that the Land Commissioner could consider the question of exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 82 read with Rule 62(ii) of the Rules. Undoubtedly the direction made by the learned single Judge was in the nature of the suggestion which should have been in good course been accepted by the Land Commissioner. However, we are now giving a positive direction to the Land Commissioner to apply his mind to the question whether the lands belonging to the Trust in question are at all liable to be declared surplus under the Act. This he shall do after giving sufficient opportunity to the respondent to put forth the case of the Trust. It will be open to the Land Commissioner to direct this enquiry to be made by the authorised Officer in case he thinks it necessary.
6. We have no doubt that for the purpose of Rule 62(ii) the date 18.9.1979 must be treated as the date for determining the period during which the Land Commissioner was entitled to ‘exercise his suo motu jurisdiction. We must also make it clear that the question of limitation under Rule 62(ii) will not now arise because if the Land Commissioner has complied with the order of the learned single Judge dated 13.11.1981, his revisional jurisdiction could have been well – exercised within the statutory period of five years. The period covered by the pendency of the appeal filed by the State will, therefore, have to be excluded. Accordingly, the Land Commissioner will now proceed to make an enquiry into the matter without going into the question of the period prescribed by Rule 62 of the Rules after notice.
7. The writ appeal is dismissed subject to the above observations. We, however, make no order as co costs.