AI Overview...
- RDO Orders and Review Limitations
- A subordinate RDO cannot review or reverse an order passed by a senior authority; such orders remain effective unless explicitly reviewed or overturned by higher authority. If an order (e.g., Ext.P6) is already issued, aggrieved parties must challenge it through appropriate legal channels. Further orders by RDO based on reports are permissible, but the initial order cannot be reviewed by the same RDO. RAMAKRISHNAN vs THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER - Kerala
- No application for review can be entertained after one month from the date of the original order, and actions under review rules cannot be initiated after one year from the order date. This emphasizes strict timelines for review processes. Kunjumon VS Secretary to Government - Kerala
- Judicial review principles establish that certain orders, such as land assignments by RDO, cannot be revisited once made, especially when decisions have been reviewed or upheld in higher courts. The order of assignment, not the patta, is the primary source of title where the government owns land. GADAM NARASAMMA VS DANDASI NAYA - Orissa
- The Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, and related decisions clarify that once the Land Litigation Management Committee (LLMC) or RDO has made a decision, they cannot review their own decisions, and applications for land use permission should be reconsidered if initially rejected. MARIAMMA MATHEW W/o. MATHEW GEORGE VS STATE OF KERALA - Kerala
- Specific Case Insights
- In cases involving transit passes, the non-obstante clause in Rule 106(5) overrides the requirement for NOC from the RDO, and such NOC cannot be insisted upon for issuing special transit passes, as confirmed by judicial directions. KALIMAN THOZHILALI KSHEMA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGAM LIMITED VS DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR - Kerala, KALIMAN THOZHILALI KSHEMA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD. vs DISTRICT GEOLOGIST - Kerala
- Orders passed by the RDO, such as eviction or land assignment, are subject to judicial scrutiny, but the same RDO cannot review or reverse their own orders; parties must seek challenge through higher courts or proper appeal channels. RAMAKRISHNAN vs THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER - Kerala, GADAM NARASAMMA VS DANDASI NAYA - Orissa
- Legal Principles and Conclusions
- Orders passed by a RDO are final unless reviewed or appealed through proper legal procedures, and the same RDO cannot review their own orders. The review process is time-bound and cannot be initiated after prescribed periods. Kunjumon VS Secretary to Government - Kerala, MARIAMMA MATHEW W/o. MATHEW GEORGE VS STATE OF KERALA - Kerala
- Judicial review and appellate processes are designed to prevent the same authority from re-examining its decisions, ensuring finality and adherence to procedural timelines. Challenges to RDO orders require invoking higher courts or appellate forums. RAMAKRISHNAN vs THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER - Kerala, GADAM NARASAMMA VS DANDASI NAYA - Orissa
Summary:
Orders passed by a RDO cannot be reviewed or reversed by the same RDO, maintaining the principle of finality. Review applications are strictly time-limited, and parties must seek higher judicial intervention for challenge or reversal. Specific rules, such as Rule 106(5), may override certain procedural requirements like NOC from RDO, but overall, the authority of the RDO to revisit its decisions is limited. These principles uphold procedural integrity and prevent misuse of review processes.
Search Results for "Order Passed by the Rdo Cannot be Reviewed by the same Rdo"
2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28795 • India - High Court of Kerala
B. KOSHY, ACJ, J, V.K.MOHANAN, J
Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate officer cannot review an order passed by a senior authority, and the original order remains ... was not reviewed. ... effective unless reviewed or reversed. ... If Ext.P6 order is already passed, it is for the aggrieved parties to challenge the same. A subordinate officer cannot review Ext.P6 order. However, RDO can issue further orders on the basis of the report of....
2001 0 Supreme(AP) 713 • India - Andhra Pradesh
DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, S.R.NAYAK
of Single Judge, set aside - Impugned order of RDO, quashed - Writ petition allowed ... 60 days from date of order - Since Act does not empower revenue Court to condone delay RDO ought not to have entertained ... appeal filed by Collector not maintainable - Directions of Single Judge to dispose of appeal on merits does not arise - Order ... Further, the delay cannot be excused in any event without notice to the respondent. After the order is....
2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 59 • India - Kerala
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
The non-obstante clause in Rule 106(5) prevails over the requirement in Rule 104, and the Geologist cannot insist on NOC for issuance ... of special transit passes. ... The District Geologist insisted on obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) due to the ... The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 application of the petitioner for special transit passes under Rule 106(5) of the KMMC Rules without insisting for NOC from the RDO and in the light of th....
2008 0 Supreme(Ker) 787 • India - Kerala
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Provided that no application for review shall be entertained after the expiry of a period of one month from the date of passing the order: ... Provided further that no action under this rule shall be initiated more than one year after the date of the order to be reviewed.
1968 0 Supreme(Ori) 142 • India - Orissa
G.K.MISRA
The RDO ordered assignment of the land to him in 1952. No patta was issued. ... The order of assignment, and not the patta, is the source of title in cases where the Government is the owner of the land. ... The RDO inspected the spot and recommended removal of the encroachment. The Collector ordered eviction. ... All the aforesaid decisions have been reviewed in R. Sivaji Rao Saheb Seervai Vs. Akilandathammal and Others, . ... The learned Subordinate Judge's view that some of the irregularities committed made the assignm....
2006 0 Supreme(Mad) 279 • India - Madras
M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, T.V.MASILAMANI, S.R.SINGHARAVELU
If appeal is entertained, the judgment passed in the appeal could be reviewed in the Second Appeal by the High Court and, thereafter, the party is entitled to prefer an SLP before the Supreme Court. Ultimately, it would take decades. ... It is further contended by the learned counsel that in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case, it is observed that there is a bar to the suit only after the Scrutiny Committee has passed an order about the genuineness of the community certificate, but before the order being #HL_ST....
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51173 • India - High Court of Kerala
Murali Purushothaman, J
The court found that the insistence on NOC was unsustainable as per Rule 106(5) and set aside the order. ... that NOC from the RDO was not required under Rule 106(5) of the KMMC Rules. ... for transit passes for clay transportation, asserting that Rule 106(5) exempts them from such requirement. ... The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 application of the petitioner for special transit passes under Rule 106(5) of the KMMC Rules without insisting for NOC from the RDO and in the light of the di....
2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1020 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
(Paras 2 , 8 , 9 ) (B) Judicial review - The court held that the LLMC cannot review its own decisions and ... (A) Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Application for permission to use converted land - Petitioner ... Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the RDO is directed to reconsider the application. ... Petitioner submits that once the LLMC has already found that on physical verification and considering the KSRSEC report that the property was converted prior to 2008; the said order cannot b....
2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 581 • India - Calcutta
SANJIB BANERJEE
Such matter cannot be exploited by the defendant in a suit to stall the proceedings or as a weapon, in its defence. ... Fact of the Case: Petitioner challenged an order of the Civil Judge declining to accept the principal document on which ... ORDER :- The petitioner has invoked Art. 227 of the Constitution of India to assail an order of May 4, 2007 passed in Title Suit No. 43 of 2003. ... In the first case, the Supreme Court considered the revision by a defendant from an order #HL_S....
2007 0 Supreme(Cal) 585 • India - Calcutta
SANJIB BANERJEE
Such matter cannot be exploited by the defendant in a suit to stall the proceedings or as a weapon, in its defence. ... Whether the defendant can challenge the order of the lower court admitting the document in evidence on the ground of insufficient ... ASSESSMENT OF STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY - STAMP DUTY ACT, 1899 - SECTION 35, 36 Fact of the Case: The petitioner challenged an order ... ( 1 ) THE petitioner has invoked Art. 227 of the Constitution of India to assail an order of May 4, 2007 passed in Titl....
Filter by Legal Phrase
