The Board of Revenue has the power to suo motu exercise its revisional powers under S. 7(c) and 7(d) of the Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act.

SRINIVASAN, J.

1. W.P. No. 2739 of 1986:—

This Writ petition is filed by Veeraswamy for issue of a certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of the Special Commissioner, Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras in CLA.D. Dis(K) R.P 51/80 dated 14-2-1986 and to quash the same. The facts relevant for the purpose of this writ petition are shortly as follows:—

2. The lands in dispute viz., S. Nos. 1094/1 and 1094/4 of an extent of 1.29 acres and 33.89 acres respectively were taken over under Tamil Nadu Estates Abolition Act, Act 26 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 5-3-1954. They were registered as forest lands. Notification under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act was issued, followed by proclamation under Sec. 6.

3. The parents of the petitioner herein filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai for issue of patta under S. 11(a) of the Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer found that their claim was based on a bogus patta, said to have been issued by the landholder for fasli 1353, and rejected the same by order dated 9-1-1964. That order was not challenged and it became final. Long afterwards, the petitioner herein and some others applied for patta outside the scope of the Act. Under G.O.Ms. No. 1312 (Rev.) dated 26-7-1967, the Board of Revenue rejected the claim. However, the Board directed the petitioner to file a revision, if so advised, to set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, issued in 1964. A. revision was presented to the Board and it was rejected as it was belated. That was by order dated 30-6-1978.

4. Thereafter, one Ranganayaki Ammal, said to be the sister of the petitioner herein, filed a revision before the Director of Survey and Settlement, under S. 5(2) of the Act against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 9-1-1964. The Director of Survey and Settlement, ignoring the prior proceedings, set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, with some observations. On remand, the Assistant Settlement Officer passed an order on 21-3-1980, granting patta in favour of the said Ranganayaki Ammal holding that lands were ryotwari lands. That order was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Settlement Officer. The petitioner obtained an order of stay pending the disposal of the said proceedings. The order of stay was challenged by the said Ranganayaki Ammal before the Director of Survey and Settlement, who granted interim stay. That order was challenged in a revision before the Board of Revenue in RP. No. 51/80 dated 5-5-1980. When the revision came up before the Board for hearing on 13-9-1985, the counsel who appeared for the petitioner therein, represented to the Board that the matter had been settled between the petitioner and the respondent therein and he was willing to have the Revision withdrawn and that it could be dismissed. But the Board heard the arguments of the Advocate and perused the records. On merits, the Board found that in view of the earlier proceedings in 1964 and the order of the Board in 1978, rejecting the claim of the petitioners parents as well as that of the petitioner, the order passed by the Director of Settlement, remanding for fresh disposal and the consequential order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, granting patta in favour of the petitioners sister, were all ab initio void. Consequently, the Board held that the lands having been registered already as forest lands, the claim for patta having been refused earlier within the provisions of the Act and outside the scope of the Act, there was no case for granting the prayer of the petitioner before the Assistant Settlement Officer in the proceedings. Therefore, the Board set aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and directed the lands to be registered again as forest poromboke in all the revenue and settlement accounts. It is the said order of the Board,