ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

1. By this writ petition, we are called upon to discuss and decide the legal question as to whether an authority (in this case, the Land Reforms Spl.Appellate Tribunal), who has been conferred with the suo motu powers by a Statute, can make use of the same to nullify a judicial order passed by this Court under the garb of such suo motu powers conferred on him by the Statute.

.2. To appreciate this legal question, the brief facts which could be culled out from the materials placed on record are that the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 7 are the children of one late K.A.Senapathi Gounder, who held lands to an extent of 849.39 ordinary acres, equivalent to 257.203 standard acres as on the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act No.58/61) (hereinafter called as the Act) on 4. 1960; that the draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act, proposing to declare an extent of 647.69= ordinary acres equivalent to 183.118 standard acres of land as surplus was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 29. 1971 by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode/the fist respondent herein and a copy of the Draft Statement was sent to the land owner on 110. 1971; that on receipt of the Draft Statement, the land owner filed his objections under Section 10(5) of the Act on 22. 1972 and after considering the objections of the land owner, an order under Section 10(5) of the Act was passed on 7. 1972 and the order was also served on the land owner.

3. It is further seen from the materials placed on record that as against the above said order dated 7. 1972, the land owner and his daughters i.e. the respondents 4 to 7 herein have filed appeals before the Land Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode in L.T.A.Nos.360, 428, 429, 430 of 1972 and 340 of 1973 and by the judgment dated 26. 1973, the Land Tribunal has allowed the said appeals and by setting aside the said order dated 7. 1972 passed under Section 10(5) of the Act, the Land Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Erode, had remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the said judgment of the Land Tribunal/Principal Sub Court.

4. Thereafter, a revised order under Section 10(5) of the Act was passed on 14. 1974 by the Authorised Officer, for a second time, as against which an appeal in C.M.A.No.37 of 1975 was filed by the land owner/father of the petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 before the Land Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Erode and the said Court, by the judgment dated 24. 1976, has allowed the said appeal, setting aside the order of the Authorised Officer dated 14. 1974 and remitting the matter back to the Authorised Officer for fresh disposal according to law, in the light of the observations made by the Court.

5. Pursuant to the said order of the Land Tribunal and on remand of the matter, an order under Section 10(5) of the Act was passed by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode in his Ref.No.93/MR.I/58-61, dated 22. 1977, for a third time. In this order, the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) has re-assessed the entire issue, after making personal inspection to the lands, further keeping in view the judgments passed by the Land Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Erode and allowing certain exemptions in favour of the land owner.

6. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that the common judgment passed by the Land Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Erode in L.T.A.Nos.360, 428, 429, 430 of 1972 and 340 of 1973, dated 26. 1973, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer dated 7. 1972 and remitting the matter back to the Authorised Officer for fresh consideration and the judgment dated 24. 1976 passed by the same Court in C.M.A.No.37 of 1975, thereby setting aside the order dated 14. 1974 passed by the Authorised Officer and remitting the