BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02/04/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(NPD)No.423 of 2005 E.Murugesan ... Petitioner (Claimant)/Appellant Vs. The Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli Dt. ... Respondent (Referring Officer)/ Respondent Prayer Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Tamil Nadu of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 31 of 1978, against the fair and decreetal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram, dated 21.10.2002 in unnumbered C.M.A.(G.L.)No.5753 dated 02.11.2001. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Sridharan ^For respondent ... Mr.K.Nallathambi, AGP :ORDER
The revision petitioner/appellant/claimant has filed this revision
petition as against the order dated 21.10.2002 in unnumbered C.M.A.(G.L.)No.5753
passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Ambasamudram in rejecting the unnumbered
appeal.
2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the
order passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Ambasamudram in unnumbered
C.M.A.(G.L.)No.5753 dated 02.11.2001 is not correct in the eye of law since the
revision petitioner has applied for the copy of the award on 03.10.2001 and the
same has been received on 21.10.2001 and that the C.M.A. has been filed on
07.11.2001 and it is the consistent case of the revision petitioner that the
appeal filed by the revision petitioner before the learned Sub-Judge,
Ambasamudram is not barred by limitation, in view of the fact that the
respondent has not sent the copy of the award to the revision petitioner and
this aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the learned Sub-Judge,
Ambasamudram in proper perspective and this has resulted in miscarriage of
justice and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in
furtherance of substantial cause of justice.
3. Contendending contra, Mr.K.Nallathambi, learned Additional Government
Pleader for the respondent submits that the revision petitioner has to file a
delay excuse petition along with C.M.A. and this has not been done by the
revision petitioner before the learned Sub-Judge, Ambasamudram and therefore,
the C.M.A. has been rightly rejected by the court below and the same need not be
interfered with this Court sitting in revision.
4. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the arguments
advanced on both sides and noted the same.
5. It is to be noted that Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land
for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 speaks of filing of an appeal against
order of amount determined by the prescribed authority to the concerned court
within such period as may be prescribed. Significantly, Rule 6 of the Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 prescribed six
weeks time limit from the date of receipt of the copy of the order as the time
limit to file an appeal to the court.
6. The pith and substance of the argument advanced by the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner is that the appeal is not barred by time, in lieu of
the fact that the revision petitioner has not been served with the copy of the
award and therefore, the plea of limitation cannot be put against the revision
petitioner/appellant in any manner in the eye of law and this Court is in
complete agreement with the said submission.
7. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and bearing in
mind of an important fact that the revision petitioner has not been served with
the copy of the award so as to enable him to prefer an appeal, this Court is of
the considered view that the order of the learned Sub-Judge, Ambasamudram in
rejecting the C.M.A. at the unnumbered stage is per se not correct in the eye of
law and therefore, sets aside the said order and further this Court issues a
direction to the trial court to restore the unnumbered C.M.A. to its file and to
number the same and after providing due opportunity to the other side to dispose
of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy
of this order in manner known to law and to report compliance to this Court
without fail.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order
passed by the trial Court is set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
nbj
To
1.The Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.) cum
Land Acquisition Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Ambasamudram Taluk,
Tirunelveli Dt.
2.The Subordinate Judge,
Ambasamudram.
3.Sub Assistant Registrar (Judicial),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
(to watch and report)