The main legal point established in the judgment is that the question of limitation is based on both facts and law, and the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is supervisory and cannot convert itself into a court of appeal.

1. These civil revision petitions came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 6.8.2012.

2. The petitioner in all the civil revision petitions is the same person, i.e., Amaravathy Cranes and Structural Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director. These civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking strike off the complaint in O.S.Nos.367 to 371, 397 to 410, 421 to 430 and 435 to 444 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. The C.R.Ps are yet to be admitted.

3. The suits were filed by the first respondent / plaintiff before the learned District Munsif, Ambattur seeking for a declaration to declare the 39 sale deeds executed by the revision petitioner and the second respondent and registered at the Sub Registrar Office, Poonamallee as null and void. The sale deeds were related to the year 1965.

4. Heard Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner was that the lands to an extent of 1743 acres in Morai Village were taken over by the District Collector of the the Chengalpattu District under Rule 75A(1) of the Defence of India Rules during the Second World War vide proceedings, dated 26.10.1944. After the end of the World War-II, lands were de-requisitioned to the respective land owners. Since the land use pattern was considerably changed, the land owners had decided to sell the lands. Accordingly, the petitioner had purchased the properties from the respective land owners under 39 sale deeds in the year 1965. The petitioner company purchased a vast extent of agricultural punja lands comprised in different survey numbers in Morai village by virtue of sale deeds. It was claimed that ever since the purchase, the company was in possession and enjoyment being its absolute owner.

5. The Board of Revenue on 11.09.1967 took a decision to set aside the existing registry made at the time of settlement in respect of the lands and decided to conduct a denova settlement enquiry after complying with the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948. A suo motu enquiry was taken up for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of S.No.474/1 onwards in Morai village. The settlement Tahsildar at Chengalpattu was authorised to conduct an enquiry vide notification dated 19.5.1976. The Settlement Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry and included the land for the grant of ryotwari patta. He had passed an order on 23.7.1976, 24.07.1976 and 30.07.1976 in respect of proceedings in S.R.Nos.14 to 16 of 1976. The Settlement Tahsildar had issued ryotwari patta not only to the petitioner company, but also to 46 other persons. The petitioner company got ryotwari patta to an extent of 165 acres. In respect of other lands, several other individuals were given patta. No one questioned the ryotwari patta granted by the Settlement Tahsildar to those 46 persons by the same proceedings issued. The other lands were also classsified as assessed waste manavari, cart track poramboke, temple poramboke, assessed waster dry, channel porambokel, puzhakal poramboke and road poramboke. Subsequent to the amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1970, the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Kancheepuram under whose jurisdiction the lands were situated took an action in terms of the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. He had published a draft settlement under Section 10(1) of the Land Reforms Act vide gazette notification, dated 25.03.1981 and served the copy on the petitioner company.

6. The company had filed its objection before the Authorised officer. The Authorised Officer by virtue of the power under Section 10(5) of the Act had rejected the objection made by the petitioner company. The company had filed a revision petition under Section 82 of the Land Reforms Act before