Skip to content


Gnanaprakasam Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1986)1MLJ223
AppellantGnanaprakasam
RespondentThe Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram and ors.
Excerpt:
- - being well aware that such a power is not available, it is unfortunate that first respondent in the concluding paragraph should claim that he is exercising suo motu revisional powers, having been constituted as an appellate authority, how he could exercise revislonal power, he is unable to explain while exercising powers under the act, he is fully aware that there is a revision provided under section 7 of the act, and such a revislonal authority is a different authority and not himself......order, he could not by addressing the appellate authority, get his order set aside by suo motu powers being exercised. 3. under section 6, there is no suo motu power conferred upon the appellate authority. being well aware that such a power is not available, it is unfortunate that first respondent in the concluding paragraph should claim that he is exercising suo motu revisional powers, having been constituted as an appellate authority, how he could exercise revislonal power, he is unable to explain while exercising powers under the act, he is fully aware that there is a revision provided under section 7 of the act, and such a revislonal authority is a different authority and not himself. hence, being fully aware of absence of power, he had passed the impugned order illegally.4......
Judgment:
ORDER

T. Sathiadev, J.

1. Petitioner, who got his name registered as a cultivating tenant under Section 4(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969 claims that first respondent while passing the impugned order dated 4th February, 1984, had exceeded his jurisdiction conferred under the Act. Fourth respondent, who has since been impleaded, claims that, he is the real owner of the property as per will dated 20th February, 1984, and that behind his, back, as if third respondent is the owner of the property, petitioner had secured an order illegally on 18th August, 1983, recording himself as the cultivating tenant. This collusive order is not binding upon him, as he had no notice of such a claim.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order was passed by the first respondent as an Appellate Authority, under the Act, and under Section 6 no 'suo motu' power having been conferred upon him, when he could exercise appellate powers only at the instance of parties and not on his own, the order is illegal. He would state that the Record Officer finding that he had made an illegal order or an erroneous order, he could not by addressing the Appellate Authority, get his order set aside by suo motu powers being exercised.

3. Under Section 6, there is no suo motu power conferred upon the Appellate Authority. Being well aware that such a power is not available, it is unfortunate that first respondent in the concluding paragraph should claim that he is exercising suo motu revisional powers, Having been constituted as an Appellate Authority, how he could exercise revislonal power, he is unable to explain While exercising powers under the Act, he is fully aware that there is a revision provided under Section 7 of the Act, and such a revislonal authority is a different authority and not himself. Hence, being fully aware of absence of power, he had passed the impugned order Illegally.

4. Second respondent equally must know that, for error committed by him, he must have addressed the revisional authority under Section 7, and not the Appellate Authority under Section 6. If he had committed an error and had chosen to entertain a representation from fourth respondent, the order passed by him ought not to have been set aside by the authority without affording an opportunity to the petitioner who is the beneficiary of the order. Thus, so many infirmities exist in the impugned order and they are the making of the authorities, who are aware of the powers conferred under the Act. It is because of such illegality committed, it results in the writ petition being allowed, resulting in the impugned order dated 4th February, 1984 being set aside and now, leaving it to the second respondent, if he so chooses to address the appropriate authority, and have the error, if any, committed by him corrected.

5. Hence the writ petition is allowed with costs fixed at Rs. 200, to be paid by respondents 1 and 2 each.


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