The Director of Survey and Settlement lacks jurisdiction to initiate suo moto proceedings under Section 5(2) for an appealable order, as per Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates Act.

ORDER :

J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned suo moto revisional proceedings of the first respondent herein under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963) emanating for the issuance of impugned Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2018 in his proceedings in E2/1734/2018(3) culminating into consecutive Notice in E2/1734/2018(3) dated 31.01.2019 and quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioners is that originally P.Govindaswamy and 34 others filed a Claim Application/Petition before the first respondent herein seeking issuance of Ryotwari Patta with respect to their respective lands situated at Echankarai Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The said village was an Inam Estate. The Petitioners herein claimed issuance of Patta for their respective lands situate in the above mentioned Echankarai Village under Section 11 (1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 23/1963) on the strength of personal cultivation of the lands for more than the period prescribed under the said Act. The second respondent herein, vide his order dated 02.12.2010 in his proceedings in S.R.5/2010/D2 directed that Ryotwari Patta shall be issued to the claimants. However, it is pertinent to mention that the final orders were passed issuing Ryotwari Patta for the lands in the name of its respective claimants. It is also mentioned in the order dated 02.12.2010, it has been clearly provided that any party aggrieved by the said order shall prefer an Appeal before the Tribunal with a span of three months from the date of order under Section 12 (2) of the said Act. In so far the Government is concerned, limitation to prefer appeal has been provided as one year. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred either by any aggrieved party or by the Government till date and therefore the order of the second respondent herein dated 02.12.2010 in his proceedings in S.R.5/2010/D2 had attained finality. Following the orders of the second respondent, the third respondent had issued Patta to the claimants vide his order dated 09.05.2012 and effected necessary mutations in the revenue records. Section 5(2) of the said Act empowers the first respondent to revise or cancel those non-appealable orders of Settlement Officer. The said provision, in its crystal clear terms, prohibits the exercise of such revisional powers by the first respondent herein with respect to orders of Settlement officer, for which appeal remedy is available before the Tribunal. In the present case, the order dated 02.12.2010 made by the second respondent herein in his proceedings in S.R.5/2010/D2 is appealable to the Tribunal as provided under Section 12 (2) of the said Act. Thus, the above suo moto proceedings initiated by the first respondent herein suffers from lack of jurisdiction and explicit statutory prohibition. Hence the writ petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2018 issued by the first respondent herein calling upon the petitioners herein to show cause in suo moto proceedings initiated by them under Section 5(2) of the Act Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conve