The court confirmed that claims for ryotwari pattas under the Tamil Nadu Estates Act must adhere to strict statutory limitation periods, establishing that earlier rights lapsed and warrants dismissal of such appeals.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11859 of 2014 dated 19.01.2016.

W.A.No.1918 of 2018: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in Review Petition No.197 0f 2015 in W.P.No.11859 of 2014 dated 19.01.2016.

W.A.No.1919 of 2018: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in Review Petition No.210 of 2015 in W.P.No.11859 of 2014 dated 19.01.2016.

W.A.Sr.No.104222 of 2018: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23739 of 2014 dated 02.03.2017.)

P. B. Balaji

1. All these Writ appeals arise against a common order passed in W.P.No.11859 of 2014, R.A.Nos.196,197 and 210 of 2010 and Cont.P.No. 935 of 2015, dated 19.01.2016. The appellant before us is the petitioner in Writ petition as well as the Contempt petition. The review applications were filed at the instance of the State Government and District Collector (R.A. No.192 of 2015), Tata Communication Limited (R.A.No.197 of 2015) and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited Employee’s Cooperative Housing Society (R.A.No.210 of 2015).

2. The brief facts that are necessary for deciding the above writ appeals are as follows: - The petitioner in W.P.No.11859 of 2014 approached the Writ Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Secretary to Government to consider the petitioner’srepresentations dated 24.04.2010 and 04.10.2012, on merits and pass orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Initially, the said writ petition came to be ordered by the Writ Court on 25.04.2014, directing that the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department to consider the representations dated 24.04.2010 and 04.10.2012 and pass orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing,within a period of 4 months from the receipt of copy of the order. Alleging disobedience and non-compliance of the of said order, the petitioner filed Cont.P.No.935 of 2015.

3. At the same time, three review applications came to be filed by the respondents as already indicated hereinabove, seeking to review the order dated 25.04.2014 in W.P.No.11859 of 2014 on the grounds that the applications in the form of representations were hopelessly time barred and had become stale and therefore there could not be any direction to consider the same on merits or in accordance with law. In the Rev.P.No.210 of 2014, the order in writ petition is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the writ petitioner had suppressed material particulars and has also not impleaded the proper and necessary parties in the writ petition and that further a new writ petition had been filed pending the contempt petition, touching the same subject matter. In Rev.P.No.197of 2015, the order in W.P.No.11859 of 2014 is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the writ petitioner had suppressed the pendency and disposal of the Civil Suit which was pending in appeal and that the review petitioner ought to have been impleaded in the writ petition, being a proper, necessary and interested party and further on the ground that the writ petition itself was filed invoking equitable relief after a lapse of 60 years.

4. All these review petitions and the Contempt petition were heard together