Actions taken by Special Officer are to be treated as actions taken by State.

K.A.Swami, C.J.

This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17. 1996 dismissing W.P. No.9983 of 1996. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents, at the stage of admission. Accordingly, learned Government Pleader appears for the respondents. The appeal is admitted and heard for final disposal.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner/ appellant has sought for quashing the order dated 7. 1996 passed by the first respondent, refusing to grant an order staying the operation of the order passed by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District in Roc.B1/ 65678/92, dated 30.5.1996.

3. There was a proceeding initiated against the petitioner and another person, by name A.Perumal under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for evicting them from S.Nos.60 and 65 of Ami Taluk and Town,Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District, on the ground of alleged encroachment on the aforesaid lands by them. In that proceeding, an order was passed on 30.5.1996 by the District Collector Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District as an appellate authority, confirming the order of the original authority, directing eviction of the petitioner and another. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/ appellant has preferred a revision petition under Sec. 10-A of the Act before the first respondent. Pending disposal of the revision, he has filed an application to stay the operation of the order of eviction passed by the District Revenue Officer on 30.5.1996. The revisional authority has rejected that application on the ground that there are no sufficient grounds to show that the order has been passed by the District Revenue Officer in violation of the verdict of the High Court.

4. It may be pointed out here that in the case of appeal or revision, preferred against the order directing eviction under Sec. 10 or Sec.10-A respectively of the Act, by the person, who is directed to be evicted, if an interim order is not granted, it would result in eviction of the appellant or the revision petitioner, as the case may be, before deciding the case. It would be traversity of justice if the order of eviction is executed and given effect to even before the appeal or revision, as the case may be, is decided. Sec.10-A of the Act, among other things confers suo motu or on application the power of revision on the 1st respondent (who is exercising the power of the then Board of Revenue against the order passed by the appellate authority. In the instant case, the appellate authority, viz., the District Collector has passed the order. Therefore, revision lies to the 1st respondent. Revision under Sec. 10-A of the Act can be exercised either suo motu or on an application by the aggrieved party, in either illegality or material irregularity committed by the authority in exercising the jurisdiction not vested in him by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him or has acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Thus aggrieved person is entitled to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 10-A of the Act against the order which is revisable under Sec.10-A of the Act.

5. Sec.10-B of the Act, specifically deals with slay pending decision in appeal or revision. No doubt, Sec.10-B of the Act gives a discretion to the appellate or the revisional authority to stay the order under appeal or revision, but the discretion has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. Refusal to grant stay must be based on relevant and valid grounds. If an order of eviction is given effect to, pending decision in the appeal or the revision, as the case may be, in the event the appellant or the revision petitioner succeeds in the appeal or in the revision, as the case may be, the damage that would be caused to the appellant or the revision petitioner as a result of eviction would be serious