Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent herein relating to his proceedings CLA.D. Dis. (K) R.P. 64/1982 and quash the order dated 13.2.1990. 2. The petitioner herein is the idol of Sri Kamakshiamman of Kancheepuram represented by the Executive Officer. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been endowed among other properties an extent of 0.4439 sq.ft. of land in T.S. No. 625/1 and 0.3812 sq ft. in T.S. No. 625/2 Kancheepuram Town and Taluk. Chengai Anna District. The Settlement Tahsildar III Chengalpattu granted to the petitioner herein ground rent patta under Section 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963). The second respondent filed a revision petition against the orders of the Settlement Tahsildar III Chengalpattu granting patta to the petitioner. The revision petition was filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer. Villupuram. The Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the same as belated as the petition had been filed after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date of the order of the Settlement Tahsildar. As against the said orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the second respondent herein filed a revision petition before the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur with a delay of four days in preferring the said revision petition. The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, by his order dated 3.8.1982 set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and also the order of the Settlement Tashildar, granting ground rent patta to the petitioner herein. The Settlement Officer further ordered that the land in question be vested with the Government under Section 3 (b) of the Act. As against the order dated 3.8.1982 of the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur the petitioner herein filed a revision petition before the first respondent Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. Chepauk, Madras. The first respondent by this order dated 13.2.1990 in CLA.D. Dis. (K) R.P. 64/1982 dismissed the same. The said order of the first respondent is impugned in this writ petition. 3. While passing the impugned order dated 13.2.1990, the first respondent has observed thus: 4. S. No. 625/1 and 2 were already granted patta first by the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of Sri Kamakshiamman temple, Kanchee-puram and on appeal by one Tmt. The said order of the first respondent is impugned in this writ petition. 3. While passing the impugned order dated 13.2.1990, the first respondent has observed thus: 4. S. No. 625/1 and 2 were already granted patta first by the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of Sri Kamakshiamman temple, Kanchee-puram and on appeal by one Tmt. G. Saradambal, the Assistant Settlement Officer had revised that order and allowed patta in favour of Tmt. Saradambal for S. No. 625/1 (10 cents). While it is so, one Thiru G. Srinivasan the respondent herein first put in a petition to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Villupuram claiming patta for T.S. No. 625 without mentioning the sub division. Subsequently he had clarified that his claim related to 625/2 and not to 625/1. On receipt of the clarification, the Assistant Settlement Officer informed the petitioner, the respondent herein, that he presented the petition after 12 years and hence no action could be taken in this office. 5. It is seen that, the Assistant Settlement Officer Chengalpattu in R.P. 7/74/13 Rev/Act 30/63/KPM dated 28.2.1975 on a revision petition filed by Tmt. Saradambal against the same order of Settlement Tahsildar SR. 2729/68/KPM/Act 30/63 dated 28.5.1968, set aside the above order of Settlement Tahsildar and allowed Ground rent patta under Section 13(1) of the Act 30/63 in favour of Tmt. Saradambal Ammal in respect of S. No. 625/1 (10 cents). But the Settlement Officer without taking into account the above revisional order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpattu in respect of S. No. 625/1 passed orders setting aside the original order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar in respect of both S. Nos. 625/1 and 625/2. The appeal before the Settlement Officer was only in respect of S. No. 625/2. Hence the order of the Settlement Officer in respect of S. No. 625/1 which was already allowed on patta is irrelevant and requires to be set aside in the circumstances, the order of the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur in SR. Sec. 13/KPM/82 dated 3.8.1982 in respect of T.S. No. 625/1 measuring 0-04439 square feet is set aside. 11. From the examination of the records, written arguments as well as oral arguments, it is very clear that site belongs to the Devasthanam and the superstructure belongs to the respondent. There is no coalescence of ownership proved either by the revision petitioner or by the respondent. 11. From the examination of the records, written arguments as well as oral arguments, it is very clear that site belongs to the Devasthanam and the superstructure belongs to the respondent. There is no coalescence of ownership proved either by the revision petitioner or by the respondent. Therefore nobody is entitled to Ground rent patta as per the decision reported in 93 Law Weekly page 707 as held by the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur. 12. In the circumstances I agree with the order of the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur in respect of T.S. No. 625/2 only and accordingly direct the revision petition filed by the Executive Officer, Kamakshiamman Devasthanam be and is hereby rejected. As ordered by the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur the land in question in T.S. No. 625/2 shall vest in Government under Section 3(b)of Act 30/63. It will be open to the superstructure owner (i.e.) the respondent herein to apply to the Revenue Authorities for patta outside the scope of Abolition Act.” Aggrieved against the orders passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 4. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner temple is that the Settlement Officer ought not to have (sic) confirmed that the delay was only four days while entertaining the revision petition filed by the second respondent herein. The Settlement Officer has failed to go into the merits of the case and failed to note that there is an abnormal delay of 12 years in preferring the revision. The reasoning given by the Settlement Officer while condoning the delay is that the revision petitioner has stated that the papers have been misplaced and he was able to trace out in the meanwhile and there occurred a delay of four days. On that ground the Settlement Officer should not have condoned the delay. 5. The orders passed by the Settlement Officer in SR. 1/Sec. 13/KPM/82 dated 3.8.1982 reveals that in the order dated 15.11.1981 the assistant Settlement Officer has informed the revision petitioner-second respondent in the writ petition that no action can be taken on his revision petition on the ground that the said revision petition had been presented after a lapse of 12 years against the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar on 28.5.1968 granting patta to the petitioner temple. The Settlement Officer has further stated in his order that the revision petitioner therein has admitted that as the impugned endorsement had been misplaced in the office of his advocate, a delay of four days had occurred in filing the revision petition. After issuance of notice to both parties, the delay has been condoned by the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer has observed that the revision petitioners wife owns the superstructure on the site in question but not the site and that the respondent owns the site in question but not the superstructure thereon. The Settlement Officer has relied upon the decision of this Court in Arulmighu Kumarakattalai Subramaniasawami Devas-thanam v. K.S. Sundararajulu I.L.R. 1975 -1-Madras 501 wherein it has been held that Section 13 of Act 30 of 1963 would apply only if the owner of the building is also the owner of the site. The Settlement Officer has proceeded on the basis that the revision petitioner-second respondent herein has restricted his claim to the issue of a notification that his wife owns the superstructure existing on the land in question. The Settlement Officer has relied upon the decision of this court in K. Vellappa Gounder and sons by partner K. Vellappa Gounder and others v. K.S. Thirugnanam (93 L.W. 707) wherein this court has held that in order to enable the person to get ground rent patta under Section 13, he must be the owner of the site and the building and if the owner of the building is anybody other than the landholder, the land will be vested in Government under Section 3(b) of the Act. Following the decision of this court cited above, the Settlement Officer, has set aside the orders granting patta by the Settlement Tahsildar and also the impugned endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer. He has further held that the land in question be vested with the Government under Section 3(b) of the Act. The Settlement Officer has further observed that it would be open to the person who owns the buildings to apply to Government for grant of ground rent patta outside the provisions of the Act. 6. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963 deals with the vesting of Minor Inams in Government. 6. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963 deals with the vesting of Minor Inams in Government. Section 3(b) of the Act reads thus: “every minor inam including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranies including private tanks and ooranies and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, situated within the boundaries thereof, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances, and the Madras City Land Revenue Act, 1851 (Central Act XII of 1851) except Sections 2 and 12, the Madras City Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1867 (Tamil Nadu Act VI of 1867) The Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1964), the Tamil Nadu Irrigation Cess Act 1865 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1865), the Tamil Nadu Transferred, Territory Ryotwari Settlement Act 1964 and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari lands shall apply to the minor inams.” 7. As per the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act stated above every minor inam including all communal lands and porambokes, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranies including private tanks and orranies and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, situated within the boundaries thereof, shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them free of all encumbrances. As the land in question is an Inam land, it stood transferred to the Government and vested in them. 8. Section 13 of the Act deals with the vesting of buildings which reads as follows: “(1). Every building situated within the limits of an inam land shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that day but the Government shall be entitled for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the appointed day falls to levy the appropriate assesment thereon. (2) In this section, ‘building’ includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto.” 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner temple was granted patta in the year 1968 and it is not in dispute that the second respondent herein had the knowledge of granting patta to the petitioner temple in the year 1968. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner temple was granted patta in the year 1968 and it is not in dispute that the second respondent herein had the knowledge of granting patta to the petitioner temple in the year 1968. In such circumstances, the second respondent herein should have chosen to avail the remedies open to him immediately. The reasoning given by the second respondent that the endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer has been lost in the office of the counsel and found only after a period of 12 years is untenable. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Settlement Officer has erred in taking cognizance of the above fact. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the second respondent herein has only stated that the endorsement has been lost in the counsels office and he has not explained the reasons for the delay. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that the Settlement Officer should have rejected the revision petition of the second respondent only on the ground that it has been filed after nearly 12 years and the Settlement Officer has failed to decide the fact whether there is a delay of four days or 12 years. The Settlement Officer has just believed the version of the second respondent that there was only a delay of four days and has condoned the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further emphasised that it is unbelievable that the endorsement could be found out nearly after a period of 12 years and it is only an afterthought to add the period of limitation. Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that no material has been placed before the Settlement Officer to prove that the second respondent is the owner of the building. He has further argued that even the case of the second respondent is accepted that his wife has purchased the site T.S. No. 625/2, the land being the minor inam automatically stands transferred to the Government in view of Section 3(b) of the Act XXX of 1963. 10. Section 8 of the Act XXX of 1963 deals with the grant of ryotwari pattas. 10. Section 8 of the Act XXX of 1963 deals with the grant of ryotwari pattas. Section 8(1) of the Act reads as follows: “Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), every person who is lawfully entitled to the Kudivaram in an inam land immediately before the appointed day whether such person is an inamdar or not shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of that land. Section 8(2) of the Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959), and in the Tamil Nadu Transferred Territory Incorporated and Unincorporated Devas-woms Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1959) the following provisions shall apply in a case of lands in an iruvaram minor inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution or for the performance or a charity of service connected therewith or of any other religious charity – (i) where the land has been transferred by way of sale and the transferee or his heir, assignee, legal representative or person deriving rights through him had been in exclusive possession of such land - (a). for a continuous period of sixty years immediately before the 1st day of April 1960, such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land; (b). Section 11 of the Act deals with determination of lands in respect of which any person is entitled to ryotwari patta. Section 11(1) of the Act reads thus: The Assistant Settlement Officer shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) inquire into the claims of any person for a ryotwari patta under this Act in respect of any inam land and decide in respect of which land the claim should be allowed. “11. A reading of the orders passed by the authorities below revealed that the Settlement Officer has set aside the endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 3.8. 1982 in respect of S. Nos. 625/1&2 and ordered the land to be vested with the Government under Section 3(b) of the Act. The Settlement Officer has confined the grant of patta in favour of Tmt. Saradambal in respect of T.S. No. 625/1. 1982 in respect of S. Nos. 625/1&2 and ordered the land to be vested with the Government under Section 3(b) of the Act. The Settlement Officer has confined the grant of patta in favour of Tmt. Saradambal in respect of T.S. No. 625/1. The second respondent who happened to be the husband of the said Saradambal has filed a revision petition before the Settlement Officer for claiming patta in respect of T.S. No. 625 without mentioning the subdivisions. Later he has clarified that his claim was restricted only to T.S. No. 625/2 and not to T.S. No. 625/1. The Assistant Settlement Officer has informed the second respondent that his claim was belated as the petition has been filed after a period of 12 years. A reading of the order of the first respondent shows that the fact that the Settlement Officer has erred in condoning the delay of four days has been brought to the notice of the first respondent and the same has been questioned by the petitioner herein. The only reason given by the revisional authority-first respondent is that that the orders condoning the delay has become final and it cannot be agitated. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can go into the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer in condoning the delay of 12 years as the same has been agitated before the first respondent-revisional authority. 12. Learned counsel for the second respondent has argued that as the endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer has been lost in the counsels office, later it has been traced out and immediately thereafter, a revision petition has been filed before the Settlement Officer with a delay of four days. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent the order passed by the Settlement Officer on 3.8.1982 has become final and is not subject to re-open by the petitioner in the writ petition. 13. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent the order passed by the Settlement Officer on 3.8.1982 has become final and is not subject to re-open by the petitioner in the writ petition. 13. To substantiate his contention that the Settlement Officer ought not to have condoned the delay of 12 years on the petition filed by the second respondent, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Jathavan v. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration Madras ( 1999(2) L.W. 648 ) wherein this court has held that condoning the delay of 10 years is not a reasonable time and has set aside the orders passed by the respondent therein. This court while rendering the above decision, has followed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Koyya Veerraju v. Mandal Officer (1997 (3) An.W.R. 229) Wherein it has been held as follows: “Dealing with the revisional powers of the authorities either under the Act in question or under similar Act or similar provisions available under other allied Acts, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Petal Raghav Natha while explaining the power of commissioner to revise the order made under Section 65 the effect of limitation, three questions were answered as follows viz., the revisional powers must be exercised within a reasonable time viz., within a few months, while ordering the authorities shall give reasons for its conclusion, the commissioner while exercising his powers conferred under Sections 65 and 211 of Bombay Land Revenue Code (5 of 1879) cannot decide questions of title against occupant. The relevant discussion is at paras 11 and 12, which reads as follows: 11. The question arises whether the commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised. 12. It seems to us that Section 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under Section 211. 12. It seems to us that Section 65 itself indicates the length of the reasonable time within which the Commissioner must act under Section 211. Under Section 65 of the Code if the Collector does not infant the applicant of his decision on the application within a period of three months the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. This section shows that a period of three months is considered ample for the Collector to make up his mind and beyond that the legislature thinks that the matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Reading Sections 211 and 65 together it seems to us that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few months of the order of the Collector. This is reasonable time because after the grant of the permission for building purposes the occupant is likely to spend money on starting building operations at least within a few months from the date of the permission. In this case on October 12, 1961, i.e. more than a year after the order and it seems to us that this order was passed too late.” 14. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Settlement Officer has got power at exercise his discretion. The disputed question is while exercising his discretion, the Settlement Officer has not taken into consideration of the fact that the petitioner temple was granted patta in the year 1968 itself and it has become final and the petitioner temple was in possession of the land since then. The Settlement Officer should not have relied upon the reason put forth by the second respondent that the endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer was traced out only after a period of 12 years. The Settlement Officer should have viewed that the period of 12 years was not a reasonable time and he should not have entertained the revision petition filed by the second respondent. 15. The Supreme Court in Government of India v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals ( AIR 1989 SC 1771 ) has observed as follows: “ In the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case. 15. The Supreme Court in Government of India v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals ( AIR 1989 SC 1771 ) has observed as follows: “ In the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as the determination of the question will depend upon the facts of each case.” 16. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ramakrishna Reddys case ( 1997(4) ALT 409 ) has held as follows: “It is a question of reasonable period of limitation within which that power should be exercised where the question is one exercising that power within a reasonable time and what is a reasonable period would undoubtedly be dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the suo motu power must be exercised to advance the cause of justice and not to upset settled rights”. 17. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Manicka Naicker v. E. Elumalai Naicker ( (1995) 4 S.C.C. 156 ) wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: “The jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, to entertain and decide the suit for recovery of land was not, in any manner, ousted by the coming into force of the Act. Nor did the decree passed in the suit become a nullity because of the grant of a joint patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the names of the appellant and the respondent in respect of the building and land respectively prior to the passing of the decree.” The Supreme Court in the above decision has dealt with Sections 13, 43 and 46 of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963. 18. Learned counsel for the second respondent has argued that as the wife of the second respondent has purchased the land, they are entitled for issuance of patta under the Act. 19. 18. Learned counsel for the second respondent has argued that as the wife of the second respondent has purchased the land, they are entitled for issuance of patta under the Act. 19. It is clear from a reading of Section 3(b) and Section 13 of the Act, unless a person owns both the building and the site on which the building is situate, it will not vest in him so as to enable him to obtain a ground rent patta under Section 13 of the Act. It is also clear from the provisions of the Act and decided cases that in order to enable him to obtain a ground rent patta under Section 13 he must be the owner of the site and the building and if the owner of the building is any body other than the land holder the land will be vested in the Government under Section 3. The rights of the temple have been settled in the year 1968 itself and the Assistant Settlement Officer has taken the view that the second respondent has filed the petition after a period of 12 years and rejected the same and the Settlement Officer has reversed it. Except stating that the Second respondents wife owned the superstructure of the site in question, the Settlement Officer did not adjudicate the matter with reference to any documentary evidence. No finding has been arrived at by the Settlement Officer with regard to the ownership of the superstructure. The action of the Settlement Officer in reversing the endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer would show that it is not for the advancement of cause of justice. The second respondent has confined his claim only with regard to T.S. No. 625/2. On a revision petition filed by the petitioner herein, the first respondent has set aside the orders passed by the Settlement Officer in respect of S. No. 625/1 in which the patta has already been granted. The first respondent has missed the fact that the second respondent has confined his claim only with regard to S. No. 625/2. From the orders passed by the authorities below it could be seen that there is no evidence to show that the second respondents wife is the owner of the building. The first respondent has failed to examine whether the person claiming patta for the building is the owner of the site also. From the orders passed by the authorities below it could be seen that there is no evidence to show that the second respondents wife is the owner of the building. The first respondent has failed to examine whether the person claiming patta for the building is the owner of the site also. As the land has already been vested with the Government the petitioner temple was issued with the patta in the year 1968. The second respondent has chosen to question the same nearly after a period of 12 years and this court feels that the reasoning given by the second respondent that the endorsement made by the Assistant Settlement Officer has been lost in the office of the counsel is not a satisfactory one to condone the delay of 12 years. As held by the Supreme Court and this court in the decisions cited above, the authorities below while condoning the delay should exercise their discretionary power in a proper perspective and should condone the delay if it is within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the Settlement Officer has condoned the delay of 12 years and the same has been approved by the first respondent revisional authority observing that the Settlement Officer has condoned the delay after hearing both the parties and the petitioner herein is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer. In the case on hand, the authorities below have exceeded their discretionary power. For the above reasons, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, stay petition in W.M.P. No. 10024 of 1990 is closed.