BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04/07/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
W.P.(MD).No.542 of 2006
Ammavasai ... Petitioner
vs.
The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 009. ... Respondent
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the respondent on 05.09.2005 in reference
K.Dis.K4/30620/2005 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the
respondent to decide the revision filed by the petitioner on merits.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Aravindan
^For Respondent ... Mr.D.Muruganandam
Addl.Government Pleader
:ORDER
The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court,
to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration in
revision, filed by the petitioner, which was ordered to be dismissed as barred
by limitation.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that the petitioner
was issued a patta by properly classifying the land, which was subsequently
allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of
changing of category of the land, filed revision under section 13 of the Tamil
Nadu Patta Passbook Act 1983. The District Revenue Officer, also rejected the
revision.
3.The petitioner, thereafter challenged the order passed by the District
Revenue Officer, before the Special Commissioner of Land Administration and
Commissioner Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.
4.The learned Special Commissioner for Land Administration and the
Commissioner of Land Administration rejected the revision being time barred by
holding that the grounds taken for condonation of delay did not constitute
sufficient cause.
5.Though, prima facie the impugned order can not be sustained, for the
reasons that it is non-speaking order, as the order does not disclose the
grounds taken for the condonation of delay and as to why the grounds did not
constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
6.However, this Court cannot be accepted for the simple reason, that the
revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration, was not competent, as
under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act 1983.
7.The decision of the District Revenue Officer in the revision is final,
and is subject to challenge in the civil suit only.
8.Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act 1983 reads as follows:-
“No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government
in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass-book that is
maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended:
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in
possession, by an entry made in the patta pass-book under this Act, he may
institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to
such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass-book
shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.”
9.In view of the reasons stated, the writ petition is ordered to be
dismissed, as no useful purpose will be served by remanding the case to the
Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, by condoning the delay, as the
Commissioner of Land Administration as no jurisdiction to entertain said
revision.
10.Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner was bona-fide
prosecuting this case before this court, the petitioner if so advised can
challenge the impugned order by filing civil suit, in that event the petitioner
shall be entitled to the benefits under section 14 of the Limitation Act. No
costs
er