Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 162 (MAD)

Velan v. District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai

2013-01-08

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the respondent, in his proceedings, dated 15.03.2008, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the properties situated in Survey Nos.25/6, 25/7, 25/32, 25/34 and 25/35 at Idayarvattam, Pallathivayal Group, Aranthangi Town and Taluk are his self-acquired properties. The petitioner is in possession of the said properties from 05.10.1993 from the date of purchase. Survey No.25/7 was wrongly recorded in the revenue records as 'water body'. Therefore, he made a representation to the Settlement Officer on 22.06.2008 to change the patta in his name. The Settlement Officer, through his order, dated 01.11.1999 changed the patta in the name of the petitioner. On 31.03.2003, the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement reassured the change of patta in the name of the petitioner. One Veerasamy had preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi against the order of the said Assistant Director. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi cancelled the order of the Assistant Director, through his proceedings, dated 19.01.2006, without following the principles of natural justice and without perusing the records. The petitioner preferred a writ petition W.P.(MD)No.1809 of 2006 before this court, challenging the said order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi. By an order, dated 03.08.2006, this court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority. After receiving the said order copy, the petitioner became sick and therefore, he was bedridden for months together. Consequently, he could not file the revision before the respondent in time. However, he filed a revision with a delay of 290 days and also with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 290 days. The respondent rejected the revision petition filed on the ground that the same is filed with a delay and also on the reason that there is no merit in the revision. Aggrieved against the said order of the respondent, the present writ petition is filed before this court. 3. This court admitted the writ petition on 02.07.2008, till this date, no counter affidavit is filed. 4. Aggrieved against the said order of the respondent, the present writ petition is filed before this court. 3. This court admitted the writ petition on 02.07.2008, till this date, no counter affidavit is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved, in this case, is squarely covered by a decision of this court reported in (2007)7 MLJ 409 in the case of S. Ramachandran vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai and another as well as an unreported decision of this court made in W.P.No.1047 of 2006, dated 22.03.2006. In both these decisions, this court has held that the authority has got jurisdiction to condone the delay in preferring the revision petition by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent has not given any other reason as to how the revision is not having any merit, except rejecting by a single line order. 6. I have perused the order passed by the respondent. The respondent has not stated any reason as to how the revision is not having any merit. He has only stated that there are no merits on the revision without there being any discussion or facts or the grounds raised by the petitioner in the revision petition. Thus, it is totally a non speaking order. Moreover, the respondent has also dismissed the revision on the ground that the same is filed with a delay of 290 days. Certainly, when the revision is filed with a condone delay petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is for the authority to consider the same and pass orders, by taking note of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the said condone delay petition. On the other hand, the respondent has not considered any of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition and rejected the revision also on the ground that it is filed with a delay of 290 days. Therefore, in my considered view, the order passed by the respondent is totally a non speaking order. 7. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition filed before the respondent. Therefore, in my considered view, the order passed by the respondent is totally a non speaking order. 7. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition filed before the respondent. It appears that the reasons stated at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit justifies the claim of the petitioner in filing the revision with a delay of 290 days. In the absence of any contra facts, the respondent ought to have condoned the delay and considered the revision on merits. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to consider the revision application filed by the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.