Skip to content


The Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue Chepauk and the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms Vellore) Vs. V. Udayakumar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1980)2MLJ16
AppellantThe Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue Chepauk and the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms Vellore)
RespondentV. Udayakumar
Cases ReferredVadivel Servai v. Land Commissioner Board of Revenue
Excerpt:
.....of their securities and to deal with them without the intervention of the court. therefore, in an application under section 17, the tribunal is concerned only with the validity of the acts of the secured creditor in taking possession of the securities and dealing with the same under section 13. all such grounds, which would render the action of the bank/financial institution illegal, can be raised before the tribunal in the proceedings under section 17. it is for the tribunal to decide in each case whether the action of the bank was in accordance with the provisions of the act and legally sustainable. however, while considering the question of validity of the action of the bank, it is not necessary for the tribunal to adjudicate the exact amount due to the secured creditors. in other..........before the authorised officer naturally passed orders assigning the lands in question. as a matter of fact, the learned judge has taken the same view in anjalai v. the authorised officer (land reforms), mayuram and ors. : (1975)2mlj196 , and simply followed that view in the present case. but, the judgment of ramanujam, j. is not in accordance with the bench decision referred to above. consequently following the bench decision referred to above namely the judgment in vadivel servai v. land commissioner board of revenue (l.r.) w.a. nos. 129 to 135 of 1976, dated 12th july 1979, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the judgment of ramanujam, j. and dismiss the writ petition no. 3293 of 1976 preferred by the respondent herein. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Ismail, C.J.

1. The point involved in this Writ appeal is directly covered by a decision of this Court to which one of us was a party, in Vadivel Servai v. Land Commissioner Board of Revenue (L.R.) Madras-5 and Ors. W.A. Nos. 129 to 135 of 1976 dated 13th July, 1978. The question that was considered was whether a person who had not filed an application within the last date fixed by the Authorised Officer calling for applications for assignment of surplus lands as provided for in Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules and who filed an application after the said date is entitled to the assignment of lands. The Bench in the decision referred to above has held that the Rule itself has obliged the Authorised Officer to fix a last date for receipt of applications and any application received after the expiry of the last date cannot be considered by the Authorised Officer. In the present case Ramanujam, J. has held that notwithstanding the fact that the respondent herein filed the application after the expiry of the last date still his application should be considered provided it was received before the Authorised Officer naturally passed orders assigning the lands in question. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge has taken the same view in Anjalai v. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Mayuram and Ors. : (1975)2MLJ196 , and simply followed that view in the present case. But, the judgment of Ramanujam, J. is not in accordance with the Bench decision referred to above. Consequently following the Bench decision referred to above namely the judgment in Vadivel Servai v. Land Commissioner Board of Revenue (L.R.) W.A. Nos. 129 to 135 of 1976, dated 12th July 1979, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the judgment of Ramanujam, J. and dismiss the writ petition No. 3293 of 1976 preferred by the respondent herein. There will be no order as to costs.


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