Delhi Properties and Building Society Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Ratnam, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Land Reforms dated 3.6.1983, in and by which the Commissioner of Land Reforms found that the declaration u/s 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'', made by the Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms in his proceedings dated 22.10.1982 is correct and does not call for any interference. There is no dispute that the first order by the competent Authority viz., Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, was passed u/s 9(5) of the Act. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal u/s 33 of the Act. When an objection was raised by the office as to how the civil revision petition is maintainable, learned counsel made an endorsement to the effect that u/s 15 of the Act, a civil revision petition alone would be competent. That was how the civil revision petition had been entertained. u/s 9(5) of the Act, the competent Authority is enabled to consider the objections and after giving the objector a reasonable opportunity, to pass such orders as he deems fit. This order is appealable u/s 33(1) of the Act which prohibits an appeal only against orders passed u/s 12 or Section 29(1) of the Act. Therefore, against the order passed u/s 9(5) of the Act, the appeal was rightly entertained by the Appellate Authority u/s 33(1) of the Act. u/s 33(3), it has been declared that the order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be final. u/s 13 of the Act, against the order of the competent Authority passed u/s 12, an appeal is provided to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the same area. Against the order of the Tribunal, a further remedy by way of a revision to the High Court is provided u/s 15 of the Act. In this case, there is no question of the applicability of Section 15 as there was no appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal with reference to the order passed by the competent Authority u/s 12 of the Act. The petitioner cannot, therefore, fall back upon Section 15 of the Act to contend that the civil revision petition is maintainable. As pointed out earlier, the order in this case was passed u/s 9(5) and against that order, an appeal lies u/s 33(1) of the Act, and the appellate order has been declared u/s 33(3) to be final and not subject to any further revision. Under those circumstances, the civil revision petition preferred u/s 15 of the Act before this court is incompetent and cannot be entertained. Consequently, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

It will, however, be open to the petitioner to pursue other appropriate proceedings against the order of the Appellate Authority passed u/s 3 of the Act and in considering the availability of such a remedy to the petitioner, the concerned Authority will also take note of the fact that the petitioner had bona fide prosecuted the civil revision petition from 47.1983 till this day.