Suo motu revision under a statutory provision cannot be exercised where an appeal remedy exists and must be initiated within the prescribed limitation period, failing which the order is illegal and liable to be quashed.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 20.01.2023.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 15.03.1971, the father of the petitioner purchased the subject property from one Perumal Naicker through a registered sale deed. Thereafter, Settlement Officer issued a notice dated 24.01.1973 under Act 30 of 1963 and through proceedings dated 24.12.1999, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, primarily issued patta in favour of the father of the petitioners. Pursuant to the same, on 10.07.2000, the father of the petitioners executed a sale deed in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu, which was registered as Document No.1577 of 2000 and a portion of the property was conveyed for the purpose of a inner ring road. Thereafter, a claim was made over the property by filing a suit before the competent Civil Court seeking for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession by a third party and this suit was also dismissed.

3. The further case of the petitioners is that a show cause notice came to be issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 21.06.2004 in exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 6 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 30 of 1963”). The proceedings was initiated for cancellation of the patta that was issued in favour of the father of the petitioners by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai. Ultimately, after nearly 20 years, the impugned proceedings came to be issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 20.01.2023 cancelling the patta that was issued in favour of the father of the petitioners and a direction was also given to the Tasildhar to make necessary changes in the revenue records.

4. Heard Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

5. The submissions were made primarily on two grounds and they are :-

(a) The 2^nd respondent lacks power and jurisdiction under Section 6(c) of the Act 30 of 1963. and

(b) The entire proceedings is barred by limitation and that apart, the 2^nd respondent virtually deprived the appellate remedy that is available to the petitioners before the Tribunal and such order was passed disregarding the specific power that has been conferred under the Act.

6. The primary ground which has to be taken into consideration by this Court is as to whether the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 6(c) of Act 30 of 1963 is sustainable. To decide this issue, it will be relevant to extract Section 6 of Act 30 of 1963 hereunder :-

6.Powers of control of the Board of Revenue:- The Board of Revenue shall have power :-

(a) to give effect to the provisions of this Act

(b) to issue instructions for the guidance of [the Settlement Officers] and Assistant Settlement Officers;

(c) to cancel or revise within each period as may be prescribed any of the orders, acts or proceedings of [the Settlement Officers], other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal

7. A plain reading of Section 6(c) of the Act 30 of 1963, makes it clear that such suo-motu power can be exercised :-

(a) Where such cancellation or revision is made within the period prescribed.

(b) Where it touches upon the orders, acts or Proceedings of the Settlement Officers and

(c) Only in those cases in respect of which there is no appeal provided to the Tribunal.

8. In the instant case, the patta was granted in favour of the father of the petitioners by the As