A.Velayutha Raja v. The District Revenue Officer

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and W.M.P(MD)No.8699 of 2025 A.Velayutha Raja .... Petitioner /Vs/

1. The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Office, Tuticorin District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

3. The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District.

.... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order vide proceedings Oo.Mu.No.T6/ 2781900/2025, dated 24.03.2025 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as null and void and illegal and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to number the appeal petition dated 05.12.2024 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Mathan For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent rejecting the petitioner's revision on the ground that it is time barred.

2. I have heard Mr.A.Mathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The only ground on which the first respondent has refused to entertain the petitioner's revision is that, the revision has been filed beyond the period of 30 days. First of all, the first respondent is not even aware of the fact that the time limit for filing revision before the first respondent is 90 days and not 30 days. Secondly, the first respondent is again ignorant of Rule 15 of Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1987, which enables the first respondent to condone delay in filing the revision beyond the period of 90 days. Here, admittedly, the petitioner has also made an application for condonation of delay of 244 days in filing the 2/5

revision. The said affidavit is available in the typed set of papers. Without even referring to the said affidavit, the first respondent has proceeded to reject the revision on the ground of same being barred by limitation.

4. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to take the revision on file and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties interested. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No 24.04.2025 am 3/5

To

1. The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

3. The Tahsildhar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District.

4/5

P.B. BALAJI , J.

am Order made in Dated:

24.04.2025 5/5