Mahalakshmi v. The District Revenue Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6715 & 6716 of 2025 Mahalakshmi : Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer, Office of DRO, Madurai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.
3.The Tahsildar Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.
4. R.Sanjeevi
5. Ranjitham
6. R.Shakthi : Respondents 1/6
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to impugned order of 1st respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.G2/2358555/2024, dated 19.09.2024 by confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Ni.Mu.No.422/2022/B4, dated 04.08.2023 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Madhankumar For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has challenged the order of the first respondent dated 19.09.2024, refusing to entertain the petitioner's appeal.
2.The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 04.08.2023, has approached the first respondent by way of revision with delay. The petitioner has also made application seeking condonation of delay. However, in and by the impugned order, the first respondent has rejected the revision, stating that the appeal is beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 2/6
3.Admittedly, under Rule 15 of "the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rule, 1987" [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'], the time limit for preferring the revision to the District Revenue Officer is 90 days and under Rule 15(2), the District Revenue Officer is authorised to admit any application for revision presented after expiry of the period mentioned in sub-rule (1), if he is satisfied that the party had just and sufficient cause for not presenting the revision within the said 90 days period. However, the first respondent without noticing the said power under Rule 15 of the Rules, has proceeded to summarily reject the request of the petitioner. 4.Independently, I have gone through the condone delay application filed by the petitioner. I am satisfied that the petitioner has reasonable cause for not filing the revision in time. 5.
In view of the above, without remitting the matter to the first respondent, I am inclined to entertain the request of belated revision before the first respondent, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs.1000/- to the credit of District Siddha Medical Officer, CCRI, Periyakulam (A/c.No.10767823177, IFSC Code:SBIN0000898, State Bank of India, Periyakulam Branch), within a period of one [1] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
brought to my notice that pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2023, the third respondent is now taking steps to implement the order of the second respondent. In view of the fact that the petitioner's revision has been rejected, without adverting to the power under Rule 15(2) of the Rules. I am inclined to direct the respondents to maintain status quo for a period of eight [8] weeks. It is open to the petitioner to move an Interlocutory Application in the meantime, before the first respondent. The revision shall be disposed of by the first respondent on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.04.2025 Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR 4/6
To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Office of DRO, Madurai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.
3.The Tahsildar Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.
5/6
P.B.BALAJI.
, J.
MR 02.04.2025 6/6