AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raju, J.—S.T.A. No. 50 of 1986 : The above appeal has been filed u/s 50 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The lands in question are indisputably comprised in a Dharmadayam grant confirmed by the Government in T.D. No. 1075.
The inam has been notified u/s 1(4) of the Act with effect from 15.2.1965 from which date towards the inam stood abolished. Since there was no
claim, suo motu enquiry was initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar, III (SB), Tiruchi and there has been due publication of the notice in terms of the
Act and the Rules. Only the respondent temple applied and after considering the claims on merits, the original Authority directed the issue of patta
in favour of the respondent temple u/s 8(2)(ii) read with Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.
The appellant herein filed C.A. No. 4 of 1985 before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal, Trichy (Sub Court, Trichy). The appeal against the
order dated 22.8.1969 granting patta in favour of the respondent/temple as noticed above, came to be filed on 19.6.1985. The stand taken for the
appellant before the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal below was that the appellant as not issued with any notice of the proceedings or orders
passed by the original authority on 22.8.1969 and that therefore, the period or limitation prescribed u/s 30 cannot run against the appellant.
Reliance appears to have been placed by the appellant on a decision of this Court reported in Pandurangu Chetti and Anr. v. The Government of
Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of North Arcot 91 L.W. 368. Learned Tribunal below was of the view that the said decision will have no
application in view of the fact that unlike in the reported case, the appellant herein has been put on notice by the respondent temple of the grant of
patta and in spite of the same, the appellant was indifferent without getting activated and being vigilant in taking steps to obtain a copy or file an
appeal within a reasonable time from the date of knowledge of the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal only on
the ground that the appeal filed is barred by limitation. Hence the above appeal.
Mr. Rajarathinam, learned Counsel Appearing for the appellant relied upon yet another decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in
Rangasamy Naidu Vs. Veerappan and Others, to contend that the the indirect knowledge of enquiry and grant of ryotwari patta to some one else
is no ground to deny right of notice to a party entitled under the provisions of the Act. The Division Bench, no doubt, in the said decision came to
the rescue of the appellant in that case taking into account the fact that the moment he was attributed with knowledge of the passing of the order,
the appellant therein moved for a certified copy of the order granting patta and immediately thereafter pursued the matter on appeal. The same is
not the position here, as rightly contended by Mr. Parthasarathy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/temple. After the order were
passed in 1969, the temple on 12.1.1978 informed the appellant about the order passed by the authority granting patta in favour of the temple and
in spite of the same, the appellant adopted an indifferent attitude in not diligently taking any steps thereafter to prosecute the matter further by
obtaining the certified copy of the proceedings from the competent authority. Consequently, we are unable to apply the ratio of the decision in
Rangasamy Naidu Vs. Veerappan and Others, for the case on hand. No reasonable or acceptable explanation has been given for the serious lapse
committed even after knowledge of the orders granting patta in favour of the temple.
We see no error in the order of the tribunal below, in rejecting the appeal before it, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The appeal,
therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
C.R.P. No. 900 of 1988 : The Appellant in S.T.A. No. 50 of 1996 has also filed separately a revision in C.R.P. No. 900 of 1988 under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the authorities below. If the claim of the petitioner in the revision came to be rejected for
proper and valid reasons and the rejection of the statutory appeal on the ground of limitation is also found to be in order, it is not permissible to
allow the very same person to have recourse to the provisions contained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The provision contained
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not meant to override the specific statutory provisions under special enactments and destroy the
rights of parties acquired under the scheme and provisions of the Act. Countenancing such a claim would amount to allowing the process of law to
be subterfuged. The negligence and indifference on the part of the appellant which disentitled him to the relief in the statutory appeal is, equally, in
our view, sufficient to dissuade us from extending indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution also in favour of the appellant.
For all the reasons stated above, we are of the view that there are no merits in the above revision and the same in also hereby dismissed. No
costs.