Skip to content


The Settlement Officer, Salem and ors. Vs. K.V. Krishna Iyer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 98 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1975Mad146
ActsMadras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - Sections 67(2); Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5, 7 and 11
AppellantThe Settlement Officer, Salem and ors.
RespondentK.V. Krishna Iyer and anr.
Appellant AdvocateGovt. Pleader
Respondent AdvocateS. Jagadeesan, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- 1. the question in this case is whether in respect of a revision from an order of the assistant settlement officer granting patta under section 11 of madras act 26 of 1948, there is in him or the director of settlement the power to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. ismail j. held that there is no such power. we are in entire agreement with this view. a specific rule has been framed under the rule-making power provided in section 67 on the reference to section 11 that the revision petition to the settlement officer or a revision to the director should be filed within a specified time. the application of section 5 of the limitation act has been expressly excluded. that means neither the settlement officer nor the director of settlements has the power under section 5 of the.....
Judgment:

1. The question in this case is whether in respect of a revision from an order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta under Section 11 of Madras Act 26 of 1948, there is in him or the Director of Settlement the power to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Ismail J. held that there is no such power. We are in entire agreement with this view. A specific rule has been framed under the rule-making power provided in Section 67 on the reference to Section 11 that the revision petition to the Settlement Officer or a revision to the Director should be filed within a specified time. The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been expressly excluded. That means neither the Settlement Officer nor the Director of Settlements has the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.

2. It is true that there is no limitation provided for a revision under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act. But the order in the instant, case will not fall within the purview of the power under Section 5 or Section 7, because of the specific provision providing for a revision against the orders passed under Section 11 of the Act. The special excludes the general.

3. The appeal is dismissed. Nocosts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //