ORDER.- The revision petitioner is a person affected by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Authorised Officer initiated action under the Act. A notification under section 18 (1) was made with regard to acquisition of surplus land forming part of the petitioners’ holding. The said notification was published on 20th June, 1979. In pursuance of the notification, under rule 45 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms etc, Rules, 1962, an order was passed fixing the compensation payable for the surplus land declared from the holding of the revision petitioner. This was done by the Authorised Officer as per his proceedings dated 10th September, 1979. The draft assessment roll was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 21st November, 1979, in accordance with section 50 (3) (a) of the Act. That provision having a bearing on the question to be decided may be extracted at this stage: “50 (3) (a). The Authorised Officer shall determine the amount at the rate specified in Schedule III, and prepare a draft assessment roll in such manner and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. He shall cause it to be published together with — (i) a statement that the amount specified therein is the entire amount payable for all interests in the land and that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the persons named therein are the only persons who are entitled thereto in the proportion stated therein; and (ii) a notice stating that objections if, any, in respect of any entry in the draft may be preferred by any person in such manner as may be prescribed within thirty days from the date of the publication. (b) The Authorised Officer shall cause to be served on the persons whose names appear in the draft aforesaid a copy of the draft together with a copy of the said statement and of the said notice”. The revision petitioner filed his objections on 4th February, 1980 The same was received by the Authorised Officer on 5th February, 1980, and by his proceedings, dated 13th February, 1980, he rejected the same, being time-barred, since they were filed beyond 30 days from the date of publication, namely, 21st November, 1979. The revision petitioner once again preferred an objection petition on 22nd February, 1980, requesting reconsideration of his objection. The revision petitioner once again preferred an objection petition on 22nd February, 1980, requesting reconsideration of his objection. The said petition was also rejected as belated and not maintainable. Accordingly an endorsement was made by the authorised officer on 3rd March, 1980. Thereupon an appeal was preferred to the Land Tribunal, the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur. By his order, dated 1st November, 1980 in L. T. C. M A. No. 85 of 1980, the District Revenue Officer dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of the Authorised Officer that the bar of limitation would operate against the petitioner, It is to revise the concurrent orders of the authorities below that the present revision petition has been filed. 3. The point that is urged before me is that under sub-section 3 (a) (ii) of section 50 of the Act, the objections will have to be filed by any person within thirty days from the date of publication, but that sub-section would not apply to a person like the petitioner whose names appear in the draft assessment roll. It is also contended that under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 50, the authorised officer is required to serve a copy of the draft with a copy of the statement and notice. The very purpose of such service is to enable the persons whose names appear in the draft roll to prefer objections, and that therefore it should be construed as 30 days from the date of service of the draft statement and notice. Thus it is contended that looked at from that point of view, the authorised officer and the Tribunal were not correct in dismissing the objections as time-barred. 4. As against this, the learned Government Pleader would urge that clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 50 has nothing to do with the filing of objections and the only clause which deals with objections is clause (ii) of sub-section 3 (a) of section 50 and that clause categorically says “30 days from the date of publication”. To the same effect is Form No. 24 as. well, according to the learned Government Pleader, and the said Form is extracted below. Form No. 24. (See rule 45 (2) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962, Notice under section 50(3)(a)(ii) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Madras Act LVIII of 1961). well, according to the learned Government Pleader, and the said Form is extracted below. Form No. 24. (See rule 45 (2) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962, Notice under section 50(3)(a)(ii) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Madras Act LVIII of 1961). Notice is hereby given that the amount of compensation payable for the surplus land acquired by the Government and as determined under section 50 (3) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Madras Act LVIII of 1961) is specified in the draft compensation assessment roll enclosed. Any person, who has any objection to any entry in the draft compensation assessment roll, may prefer his objection in writing before the authorised officer within 30 days from the date of publication of the said draft in the Fort. St. George Gazette, namely ………… Objections received within the due date will enquired into at (time) “should be after thirty days of the publication of the draft compensation assessment roll”. on date at (place) when the objector may appear in person or by authorised agent and adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of the objections. Place: Date: Signature of the Authorised Officer. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, there is no justification for interference. 5. I have already extracted the relevant section and Form No. 24. To my mind, it appears that under sub-section (3) (a) (ii) of section 50, objections in respect of any entry in the draft may be preferred by any person within 30 days from the date of publication, which publication is in the Official Gazette. Merely because the Legislature has used the expression “by any person” the said expression cannot be taken to mean that the persons whose names appear in the draft assessment roll stand excluded. On the contrary, the expression any person is comprehensive enough to take within itself persons whose name appear in the draft as well. 6. Then it may be asked as to where is the necessity to serve a copy of the draft and the notice on a person why has a right to compensation. The answer is simple and such procedure is contemplated so that those persons may be informed of the proceedings. 6. Then it may be asked as to where is the necessity to serve a copy of the draft and the notice on a person why has a right to compensation. The answer is simple and such procedure is contemplated so that those persons may be informed of the proceedings. In so far as clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 50 does not contemplate filing of any objections, I see no justification for holding that the time for filing objections in accordance with sub-section (3) (a) (ii) of section 50 can be extended as within 30 days from the date of service. If I were to hold so, the Court will be legislating instead of interpreting the provision. That certainly is not the function of the Court. 7. It is true from the point of view of equity, something may be said in favour of the petitioners’ contention. But where the Act is unambiguous in its terms, the Court cannot in the guise of interpretation add something to the legislation. In other words, any such limitation with regard to preferring of any objection is found in sub-section (3) (a) (ii) of section 50, namely, thirty days from the date of publication. 8. Secondly, Form No. 24 is a statutory form and it leaves no room for doubt as to point of limitation. Therefore I am unable to take a view different from the authorities below. 9. However, I think that the Legislature must come to the rescue of persons like the petitioner, who are vitally affected by such draft notifications, because their rights are in serious jeopardy. To illustrate: “Suppose a person is away from the place where the lands are situate, unless one happens to go though carefully all the publications in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, it may not be possible for him to know about the publication. Then again it is very difficult to get the publications sometimes. In these busy days it is impossible to keep track of the events by buying gazettes and perusing carefully all the publications” Therefore the Legislature will have to think of amending sub-section (3) (b) of section 50 of the Act so as to enable persons who are directly affected by the draft roll, to file their objections, by providing that such persons shall file their objections within 30 days from the date of service of notice. After all, it should be remembered that the persons whose lands are acquired need not be obliged to face technicalities and in relation to compensation, there can be fair-play and justice, since all that one gets by way of compensation is hardly worth the property which he is obliged to part with, by the operation of the provisions of the Act, leave alone the sentiments attached to such property. 10. The Civil Revision petition is, however dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R. S. ----- Revision petition dismissed.