Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are the owners of the lands in question, Respondents 2 to 11 herein filed an application under S. 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, X of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before the Record Officer, Pattukottai, to record their names as cultivating tenants in respect of the lands in question. The Tahsildar and Record Officer by order dated 30-6-1975 allowed the application filed by respondents 2 to 11 herein as prayed for i.e., allowed the application to record their names as cultivating tenants in the record of tenancy rights in respect of the lands in question. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai. The appellate authority by order dated 28-10-1976 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, the Revisional Authority under the Act. The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, by order dated 31-3-1977 set aside the order of the Tahsildar-cum-Record Officer as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer, and remitted the entire matter back to the Tahsildar-cum-Record Officer for fresh enquiry. The Tahsildar-cum-Record Offieer on a consideration of the facts and materials on record, by order dated 20-1-1979 again allowed the application filed by respondents 2 to 11 herein to record their names in the approved record of tenancy rights. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar-cum-Record Officer, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 30-1 1982 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order in respect of the lands in respect of which the appeal was dismissed, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Revisional Authority on 3-7-1982 and since there was a delay of 55 days in filing the revision petition under S. 7 of the Act, the petitioner filed a petition to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the revision petition. The Revisional Authority viz., the 1st respondent herein by the impunged order Na.Ka. 125249/82-Sa. The Revisional Authority viz., the 1st respondent herein by the impunged order Na.Ka. 125249/82-Sa. 5 dated 28-2-1983 dismissed the petition for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition and the revision petition on the ground that there was no satisfactory supporting materials for condoning the delay of 55 days in preferring the revision petition and observed that there was no medical certificate produced by the petitioners for ailment stated to have been suffered by the first petitioner and that there was no supporting affidavit filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay. It is at this stage the petitioners have filed the above writ petition for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the revisional authority viz., the first respondent herein dated 28-2-1935 in his proceedings Na.Ka. 125249/82, Sa. 5 and to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioners on 3-7-1982 under S. 7 of the Act against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai, the appellate authority, in his proceedings dated 30-1-1982 in respect of the lands in question. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondents 2, 7 and 10 died and respondents 12 to 14 were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased 2nd respondent and respondents 15 to 18 were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased respondents 7 and 10 by an order of this court dated 30-1-1987 in W.M.P. No. 17211 of 1985. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that though there is a delay of about 55 days in filing the revision petition before the revisional authority, the revisional authority ought to have entertained the revision petition by the exercise of the suo motu powers available under S. 7 of the Act and that the rejection of the revision petition filed by the petitioners is erroneous and consequently liable to be quashed. The learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the revision was filed on 3-7-1982 with a delay of 55 days with an application to condone the said delay. It is in this context the learned counsel for the petitioners cited the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in E.A. Swamy v. The Land Commissioner, Madras-5 and another 1989-1-L.W. 81. It is in this context the learned counsel for the petitioners cited the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in E.A. Swamy v. The Land Commissioner, Madras-5 and another 1989-1-L.W. 81. That case arises under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reform (Fixation of Ceiling on Lands) Act (58 of 1981), (hereinaftar referred to as the “Land Reforms Act”,). That was a case in which the appellants therein preferred a revision petition to the Land Commissioner under S. 82 of the Land Reforms Act against the final statement published under S. 12 of the Land Reforms Act. The said revision petition was admittedly filed beyond 60 days, prescribed under R. 62(i) the rules framed under the Land Reforms Act. However, the revision was entertained by the revisional authority and stay was also granted in the said matter. Later on the said authority dismissed the said revision petition as time barred without notice to the parties. It was considered that the said disposal was against the principles of natural justice for the reason that the parties were not given an opportunity before the revision petition was disposed of. In that context, the Division Bench of this Court held that that was a fit case warranting the exercise of suo motu powers of revision by the respondent viz., the revisional authority and that it would be inappropriate to throw out a revision of the present nature on a technical plea of bar of limitation applying the rigor of R. 62(i). The Bench observed that the revisional authority ought to have exercised the suo motu power of revision under R. 62(i) of the Rules and that time limit for exercise of suo motu power of revision under R. 62(ii) of the Rules admittedly had not lapsed at the time, when the revision was preferred and when the impugned order of the revisional authority was passed, The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in The Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Madras-5, and another v. Sri Muthu Ganapadigal, Veda Padasala Thiruvayyaru 100 L.W. 441 = 1986 T.L.N.J. 146(D.B.). It is also in respect of the power of the revisional authority exercisable under S. 82 of the Land Reforms Act. It is also in respect of the power of the revisional authority exercisable under S. 82 of the Land Reforms Act. The Division Bench considered the writ appeal preferred by the Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Madras, against the observation of the learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed against the order of the revisional authority rejecting the revision filed by the Trust viz., the respondent therein beyond the period prescribed under the Act. In fact, that revision before the revisional authority was filed beyond the period prescribed for filing the revision petition. While the single Judge dismissing the writ petition observed that that was a fit case where the revisional authority could consider the exercise of suo motu power of revision, it is that observation that was challenged before the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed that undoubtedly the direction made by the learned Judge was in the nature of a suggestion which should have been in good coarse being accepted by the Land Commissioner. Having observed thus, the Division Bench gave a positive direction to the Land Commissioner to apply his mind to the question whether the lands belonging to the Trust in question are at all liable to be declared surplus under the Act. The Division Bench further observed that the question of limitation will not arise because if the revisional authority therein had complied with the order of the single Judge, his revisional jurisdiction available with the revisional authority could have been exercised within the statutory period of five years and accordingly, the Land Commissioner therein was directed to proceed to make an enquiry into the matter without going into the question of period of limitation. Having regard to the said decision, in The Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Madras-5, and another v. Sri Muthu Ganapadigai Veda Padasala, Thiruvaiyaru 100 L.W. 441 = 1986 T.L.N.J. 146 (D.B.) the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the power available under S. 7 of the Act is similar to that of the power under S. 82 of the Land Reforms Act to the Commissioner and consequently even though the revision petition filed by the petitioners was beyond the period of limitation, the revisional authority could have exercised his suo motu power of revision available to him under the provisions of the Act. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 18 herein would submit that in view of the fact that the revision was not filed within the time prescribed under R. 13 of the Rules framed under the Act, the revisional authority has rightly rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners herein. Having regard to the rival contentions submitted and the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, it is not disputed that the revision petitioner was filed by the writ petitioners beyond the period of limitation prescribed under R. 13 of the Rules. It is also not disputed that the petitioners also filed an application for condoning the delay of 55 days in filing the revision petition. However, the revisional authority has considered the application and having not satisfied with the reasons set forth and also on the basis that no satisfactory materials were produced before the revisional authority, rejected the application to condone the delay filed by the writ petitioners. On merits it cannot be said that the impugned order is vitiated by any infirmity. While so, the only question that remains to be considered is that since the revisional authority is vested with the suo motu power under S. 7 of the Act, he should have entertained the revision petitions filed by the petitioners beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Rules by the exercise of the suo motu power. If the proposition as contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, viz., that in spite of the revision petition filed beyond the period of limitation, the revisional authority, by the exercise of the suo motu power, should have entertained the revision petition is accepted, then the provisions containing the period of limitation within which the revision is expected to be filed and the power available to condone the delay in filing the revision petition beyond the period of time, would become otiose and no purpose would be served if that provision is not given effect to or otherwise if such a contention is accepted, then, the provision relating to the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision would become-nugatory or otherwise otiose. The revisional authority has rightly on a consideration of the application filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay, rejected the revision petition and it cannot be said that such a rejection is otherwise contrary to law. It may be stated that in none of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the facts are same and identical. In the case reported in E.A. Swamy v. The Land Commissioner, Madras-5, and another 1989-1-L.W. 81, the facts are not similar. That was a case where the revision petition was entertained by the revisional authority and the stay was granted and has subsequently disposed of without notice to the parties. More so, the order of the revisional authority therein was in violation of the principles of natural justice and since the order was passed within the period prescribed for exercising the suo motu power, this Court has directed the authority to consider the application by the exercise of the suo motu power available under S. 82 of the Act. In The Land Comissioner, Board of Revenue, Madras-5 and another v. Sri Muthu Ganapadigal Veda Padasala, Thiruvaiyyar 100 L.W. 441 = 1986 T.L.N.J. 146(D.B.), the revision petition filed by the petitioner therein was not entertained but was rejected on the ground that the revision petition was filed beyond the period of limitation and while disposing of the writ petition confirming the order of the revisional authority, the learned Judge observed that it is within the realm of suo motu power of the revisional authority and that the revisional authority could exercise that power and the said observation was challenged in the writ appeal and the Division Bench of this Court affirmed the order of the learned single Judge. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the petitioners had filed a revision petition along with an application to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the revision petition and having not satisfied with the materials on record, the revisional authority rejected the application along with the revision petition. It cannot be said that the impugned order therein is vitiated by any infirmity. On the other hand, since the revisional authority has suo motu power as per the provisions of S. 7 of the Act, the revisional authority could be directed to entertain the application and dispose it of on merits. It cannot be said that the impugned order therein is vitiated by any infirmity. On the other hand, since the revisional authority has suo motu power as per the provisions of S. 7 of the Act, the revisional authority could be directed to entertain the application and dispose it of on merits. In the instant case the impugned order cannot be said to be vitiated by any infirmity. The revisional authority cannot be directed to entertain the revision application since it has been filed beyond the period of limitation contrary to the statutory provision contained under R. 13 of the Rules. No doubt the revisional authority is vested with the suo motu power to consider the impugned order on merits and to decide it. However, in view of the fact that the writ petitioners have brought to the notice of the revisional authority about the infirmities contained in the impugned order, it is for the revisional authority to consider and if the revisional authority is satisfied that the impugned order suffers any illegaliiy or otherwise irregularity in the procedure followed by the authorities concerned the revisional authority can exercise the suo motu power and in case if the revisional authority decides to exercise the suo motu power, the revisional authority shall issue notice to the parties and after affording them an opportunity to put forth their case decide the matter on merits. With these observations, the writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.