1978 Supreme(Mad) 559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.
Sanga Pillal .....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and others .....Respondent(s)
C.R.P.No. 184 of 1976.
Decided On : 03 November 1978
R. Srinivasan, for Petitioner.
K. Govindarajan, Government Pleader, for Respondents.
Entertaining appeal by Land Tribunal filed beyond time.
Headnote:Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961-Section 78-Jurisdiction of land Tribunal to entertain appeal filed after expiry of time prescribed.
Act Referred
TAMIL NADU LAND REFORMS FIXATION OF CEILING ON LAND ACT : S.78
“Section 78 (1): — Against any decision of the Authorised Officer under sections 9 (2) (b), 10 (3), (4) and (5), 16 (3) (a) (iii), 20, 22, 50 (4), 51 (1), (2), 52, 61 (3) (ft) or 102 (2) (b), the Government may, within thirty days from the date of the decision and any person aggrieved by such decision may within sixty days from the date of such decision, appeal to the Land Tribunal”.
“Section 78 (2): — The Land Tribunal may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), but not exceeding thirty days, if it is satisfied that the party concerned had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period”.
The Tribunal, after observing, “in the appeal the appellant (third respondent herein) has made an endorsement that he is willing to surrender some other lands as surplus instead of the lands chosen by the Authorised Officer as surplus; then once the appellant is found to own more than the ceiling area he should be given option to specify the lands to be retained by him and the surplus land which he desired to surrender; hence it is just and proper to remand the case to the lower Court to give opportunity to the appellant to specify the land to be taken as surplus from his holding”, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Authorised Officer and remanded the matter back to the Authorised Officer for fresh disposal.
2. It is seen from the records that the appeal was filed after a delay of more than one year and an application was also filed before the Land Tribunal to excuse the delay. From the facts of the case, it is also clear that the appeal was filed only in December, 1973 whil