R.K. Agrawal, A.C.J. & K. Venkataraman, J.

1. The petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for issuance of writ of Prohibition, prohibiting and forbearing the first respondent from conducting suo motu revision proceedings initiated by him in his proceedings dated 22.11.2012.

2. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, are set out hereunder:-

(a) The land measuring an extent of 1.84 acre in S.No.18/3, Hasthampatty Village, Salem District was under the possession and enjoyment of one Venga Gounder for several decades. He is the first petitioner’s husband’s great grand father. The said land has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the first petitioner’s family for more than 80 years. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram granted patta in favour of the first petitioner in his proceedings dated 27.3.2001 under Section 11 (a) and 12 (b) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversation into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.

(b) While so, the officers of the Salem Corporation attempted to interfere with the possession of the first petitioner in November, 2003 and hence, she has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.37747 of 2003 for a mandamus forbearing them from dispossessing her except by due process of law. The said writ petition was admitted and an order of interim injunction was granted on 23.12.2003 and the same is still pending.

(c) The first petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of the second petitioner and from that date, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. He has also filed an application to substitute himself in the place of first petitioner in W.P.No.37747 of 2003.

(d) While so, the first respondent issued a show cause notice fixing the date of hearing as 22.11.2012 purporting to be a suo motu revision against the order dated 27.3.2001 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram, and called upon the petitioners to offer their explanation as to why the said order cannot be cancelled.

The petitioners, therefore, challenging the same, have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. The grounds raised thereon are—

(i) When the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram granted patta in favour of the first petitioner, the first respondent has no power to initiate suo motu revision proceedings for cancellation of the said order.

(ii) Section 7(c) of the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversation into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 contemplates that suo motu revision could be made cancelling or revising the order of the Settlement Officer other than those in respect of which an appeal lies to the Tribunal, which means, if an appeal remedy is provided, suo motu revision cannot be taken.

(iii) The first respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings against an order which was passed ten years back.

4. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein the following contentions have been raised:-

(a) The Assistant Settlement Officer has no power to entertain any application under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversation into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, after the rules to the Act have been amended in G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29.6.1987, fixing the last date as 20.8.1987 to apply patta after condoning the delay.

(b) The District Collector, Salem in his letter dated 2.1.2004 has brought the illegitimate order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram to the Commissioner of Land Administration and requested him to cancel the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and hence, suo motu revision was taken up by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and notice has been caused to the petitioner.

(c) When the Assistant Settlement Officer has passed an order without power or jurisdiction under the Act, the petitioners cannot question the jurisdiction of the first respondent.

Thus, the counter affidavit sought for the dismissal of the wr