Judgement RAMANUJAM, J. :- This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. passed in Writ Petition No. 395 of 1975, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. 2. The circumstances under which the appellant came to this Court with the above writ petition may briefly be stated. Usuvathum Hasana Muslim Sangam at KeelakaraL which has been in the management of the Pudu Pahvasaland its properties, moved the Settlement Officer, Madurai for the issue of a patta in respect of G.R.S. No. 304/5 (61 cents), G. R. S. No.324/1856 (26 cents) and G.R.S. No.324/2012 (9 cents) on the ground that the said land has been used for the purposes of the Pallivasal. The matter was remitted by the Settlement Officer to the Assistant Settlement Officer for enquiry and the Assistant Settlement Officer by his order dt.27-8-1968 held that the said three items of land had been in enjoyment of the Pallivasal and the Sangam has become the owner of these properties by virtue of its control and management over the Pallivasal for a long time and that therefore the Sangam is entitled to a Patta u/s. 18(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. He therefore directed the grant of patta in respect of the said lands to the Sangam. Thereafter one S. Arokiaswami, President, Catholic Community Council, Keelakarai (the second respondent herein) filed a revision petition on 9-10-1973 against the said order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dt. 27-8-1968 granting patta to the Sangam u/s. 18(4). The said revision petition filed before the Settlement Officer by the said Arokiaswami was rejected as having been filed out of time. According to the Settlement Officer the revision petition has been filed more than 5 years after the passing of the order by the Assistant Settlement Officer and there being no provision for condoning the delay either under the provisions of Act 26 of 1948 or the rules framed thereunder, the revision could not be entertained. There as a further revision filed by the said Arokiaswami before the Director of Survey and Settlements. The Director, agreeing with the view expressed by the Settlement Officer that there is no provision for condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition, upheld the settlement Officer's order as correct and dismissed the revision petition. 3. There as a further revision filed by the said Arokiaswami before the Director of Survey and Settlements. The Director, agreeing with the view expressed by the Settlement Officer that there is no provision for condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition, upheld the settlement Officer's order as correct and dismissed the revision petition. 3. Thereafter the said Arokiaswami field a further revision before the Commissioner of Estates, Board of Revenue, Madras. Since the Settlement Officer or the Director of Survey and Settlements had not gone into the merits of the revision petition before them and rejected the same only on the ground that had been filed belatedly, the only question that could be considered by the Board of Revenue in the revision petition filed by Arokiaswami, is whether there is provision for condoning the delay and whether the refusal of the revisional authorities to condone the delay is proper. The Board of Revenue however, in its order dt 7-11-1974 went into the merits and after holding that the Assistant settlement Officer who -granted the patta in favour of the Sangam had not respected the pre-settlement classification of the land as poromboke and its treatment as such at settlement also, felt that an examination of the claim of the revision petitioner was necessary. In this view, the Board condoned the delay in filing the, revision petition before the Settlement Officer and directed the Settlement Officer to examine the case afresh and decide the same on merits in the light of the evidence adduced and the documents; filed by the parties. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Board of` Revenue, the appellant filed W. P. No. 395 of 1975 mainly contending that the Board has no power to condone the delay in filing the revision before the Settlement Officer and therefore the Board has acted without jurisdiction in condoning the delay and directing the Settlement Officer to decide the case on merits. Mohan, J., before whom the Writ Petition came ups for final disposal, though agreed with the contention put forward by the counsel for the appellant that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to excuse the delay, has chosen to construe the order of the Board of Revenue as one passed under its suo motu jurisdiction u/s. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. Thus the learned Judge justified the order of the Board of Revenue, treating it as one passed u/s.7 of Act 26 of 1948. The learned Judge also felt that the appellant is not likely to be prejudiced by the Board ordering a re-enquiry. He therefore sustained the order of the Board of Revenue. Aggrieved by the order of Mohan, J., dismissing the writ petition, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. 5. In this writ appeal, having regard to the facts set out above, the following two questions arise for consideration : (1) Whether the Board of Revenue can condone the delay in filing the revision before the Settlement Officer? and (2) Whether the order of the Board of Revenue could be treated as a suo motu revision order passed u/s. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948 and whether it could be sustained on that basis? 6. So far as the first question is concerned, the learned Judge himself has specifically observed that the Board of revenue had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the revision before the Settlement Officer in a revision petition filed by the party against the said order. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing a revision before the Settlement Officer. The next question is whether the order condoning the delay as passed by the Board of Revenue should be treated as one under S.7. Even assuming the order passed by the Board of Revenue as an order passed u/s.7, it cannot be deemed to have been validly passed as the condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction u/s.7 has not been complied with in this case. Before the Board invokes its suo motu power u/s.7, normally a show cause notice has to be issued to the concerned party informing him that it intends to invoke the suo motu power. In this case, the order of the Board does not purport to have been passed u/s.7 independent of the revision petition. If the Board initiates suo motu proceedings after the disposal of the revision petition filed by the second respondent it would have been a different matter. But the order is passed in a revision filed by Arokiaswami and in that revision the Board can only exercise its revisional power. If the Board initiates suo motu proceedings after the disposal of the revision petition filed by the second respondent it would have been a different matter. But the order is passed in a revision filed by Arokiaswami and in that revision the Board can only exercise its revisional power. As a matter of fact, S.7 merely deals with powers of the Board of Revenue to be exercised in various proceedings. In this view of the matter, we are not in a position to agree with the order of the learned Judge and uphold the order of the Board of Revenue as having been properly passed. The Writ Appeal is therefore allowed and consequently the Writ Petition (W. P. No. 395 /75) filed by the appellant will stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs. However, we may observe that the order pronounced by us in these proceedings will not affect the power of the Board to initiate suo motu proceedings, if considered necessary in the circumstances of this case.