IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :   14.12.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

Writ Petition No.14770 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.17464 of 2018

1.K.Jaganathan
2.K.Subramaniam 1.The District Revenue Officer /    Additional District Magistrate    Coimbatore. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer    Coimbatore (South) 3.The Tahsildar, Sulur    Coimbatore.	-Vs-	….	Petitioners
4.Smt.Ramathal		….	Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 28.08.2017 passed in NK.14129/2017/E1 and quash the same.

For Petitioners           :   Mr.T.Dhanasekaran

For Respondents       :   Mr.P.Sathish

Additional Government Pleader-for RR 1 to 3

Mr.S.Arjun – for R4

O R D E R

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 28.08.2017 passed in NK.14129/2017/E1 and quash the same.

2. Regarding issuance of patta, suffered with an order passed by the Tahsildar dated 22.08.2012, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, being the appellate authority under

Section 12 of the Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. The said appeal was decided by the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer by an order dated 28.04.2017.  As against which, the petitioner preferred revision before the 1st respondent ie., District Revenue Officer on 13.07.2017.  However, the same was rejected through the impugned order dated 28.08.2017, not on merits but only on the point of limitation stating that the said revision filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. That is the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the 1st respondent which is impugned in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987, which reads thus,

“15. Revision on application – (1) An application under Section 13 to the District Revenue Officer or such officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf by Notification for revision of an order passed by the Tahsildar or the appellate authority shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of the order.

(2) The District Revenue Officer or such officer as may be authorised by the Government by the Government may admit an application for revision presented after expiry of the period mentioned in sub-rule(1) if he is satisfied that the party had just and sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that 90 days period was given under Rule 15(1) for preferring revision under Section 13 of the Act to the District Revenue Officer against the order passed by the Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer concerned under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 (in short ‘the Act’) and under sub-rule(2) of Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 (in short ‘the Rules’), even beyond the 90 days period, if there is any delay, that can be condoned entertaining an appropriate petition for condonation of delay explaining the sufficient reason or cause, by the revision petitioner. When that being so, the 1^st respondent, through the impugned order, citing a circular dated 04.11.1999, has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation and therefore the impugned order would not stand in the legal scrutiny, he contended.
5. Heard Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Arjun, learned counsel for the 4^th
6. Learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that, even though 90 days period has been given as limitation for the purpose of filing a revision against the order passed by the Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer under the Act, in view of the circular issued by the Commissioner for Land Administration dated 04.11.1999, where the limitation has been restricted to 30 days, which has also been indicated in the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was filed in the revision as impugned before the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent has taken a view that, since the revision has been filed beyond the 30 days time, it is barred by limitation.  Therefore, on that ground the impugned order has been passed by the 1^st
7. Similar submissions have been made supporting the impugned order by the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.
9. Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 is an enablingprovision to file a revision, which reads thus,

“ 13.Revision :  Any officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of District Revenue Officer authorised by the Government, by notification in this behalf for such area as may be specified in the notification, may of his own motion or on the application of a party call for and examine the records of any Tahsildar or appellate authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding under this Act and pass such orders as he may think fit :

Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making his representation.”

10. A reading of Section 13 of the Act makes it clear that, it does not contemplate any limitation as within which time such revision shall be filed before the District Revenue Officer. However, under Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987, which was framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 22 of the Act ie., the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 by Government of Tamil Nadu in its rule making power, where Rule 15(1) makes it clear that the revision shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.  Sub-section (2) makes it clear that, beyond the 90 days, delay can be condoned for sufficient reason or cause to be given.
11. In the case in hand, the order was passed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer on 28.04.2017, which was received by the petitioner on 20.06.2017. Therefore, as per the language used under Rule 15(1) of the Rules, the limitation of 90 days would start only from 20.06.2017 and the revision was filed on 13.07.2017. Therefore, well within the 90 days period, the revision has been

filed.

12. When that being so, unmindful of the legal provisions available both under the Act as well as the Rules referred to above, the 1^st respondent District Revenue Officer since has passed the order impugned by taking into account only the circular issued by the Commissioner for Land Administration dated 04.11.1999, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner only on the ground of limitation, without going into the merits of the matter, the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, is totally unlawful or unacceptable.  Therefore, the impugned order would not stand in the legal scrutiny.
13. Assuming that any lesser limitation time is prescribed by the Commissioner for Land Administration in the circular dated 04.11.1999, that prescription would not override the limitation already been prescribed under the relevant rule viz., 15(1) as well as 15(2).
14. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold thatthe impugned order dated 28.08.2017 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.08.2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent for reconsideration. While reconsidering the same, the 1^st respondent shall consider the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28.04.2017 on merits and in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent and shall pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. In view of the stand taken by the District Revenue Officer, by virtue of that the revision filed by the petitioner which is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 since has been rejected on the ground of limitation, against which this writ petition has been filed which has been pending before this Court for the past 4 years, it is a colossal loss of time for the litigant public and therefore, in order to have a better understanding of this portion of the law, this Court feels that a direction can be given to the Commissioner for Land Administration to issue a revised circular or fresh circular to reiterate the limitation prescribed under Rule 15(1) and 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, 1987 ie., 90 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act and also to direct the District Revenue Officers concerned, who are the revisional authority under Section 13 of the Act to entertain the revisions filed within 90 days and also to entertain the revisions to be filed beyond 90 days provided if reasonable and acceptable reason or cause is made by the revision petitioner by supporting affidavit by way of a separate prayer seeking to condone the delay if it is beyond 90 days period.
16. Making all these aspects in clear terms, such a fresh or revised circular shall be issued by the Commissioner for Land Administration within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  For filing a compliance report to that effect, post this writ petition in the 1^st week of February 2023.
17. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

14.12.2022

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

KST

Note : Issue order copy by today (14.12.2022)

To

1.The District Revenue Officer /    Additional District Magistrate    Coimbatore.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer    Coimbatore (South)

3.The Tahsildar, Sulur    Coimbatore.

4.Commissioner for Land Administration    Land Administration Department

2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

1. SURESH KUMAR, J.

KST

W.P.No. 14770 of 2018

14.12.2022