Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Whether the Director of Survey and Settlement is vested with suo motu power of revision under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act 26 of 1948) (for brevity sake, hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Act') is the issue referred to this Larger Bench. It is not necessary to traverse upon the factual features. Suffice it to say that the Director of Survey and Settlement in exercise of suo motu power under Section 5(2) of the Act cancelled the grant of patta issued in favour of the respondent by the Assistant Settlement Officer. In the writ petition preferred against the order of the Director of Survey and Settlement, the learned Single Judge referred to a decision of the Division Bench in the case of The Director of Survey and Settlement -vs- R.Ramadoss (1992 (2) L.W.265), wherein the Division Bench (consisting of Nainar Sundaram and Thanikkachalam, JJ.) has held that there is no suo motu power of revision under Act 26 of 1948 in the Director of Survey and Settlement under Section 5(2) of the Act. Following the said decision, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement.

6. On a bare reading of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, it is clear that the power conferred on the Director by Section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the Settlement Officer is very wide. In the first place, the Director need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf, and the power could be exercised either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo motu. For example, if the Director comes to know that contrary to the scheme of the Act or due to misrepresentation or fraud played, a patta had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the Act, then to set right that mistake, the Director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the Act and to implement the purpose behind the Act. The fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under Section 67 for making an application to the Director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in Section 5(2) of the Act is in any way curtailed or taken away. We are, therefore, unable to appreciate the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under Section 5(2) of the Act.

12. In M.Veeraswamy's case, cited supra, the Division Bench repelled the contention that the Board has no jurisdiction to suo motu exercise its revisional power under Section 7(c) and 7(d) of the Act and held as follows:

''7. It is next contended that the Board has no jurisdiction to suo motu exercise its revisional powers under S.7(c) and S.7(d) of the Act. The argument proceeds that the Board could exercise such powers only if there is an application before it for revising the order of lower authority. There is no substance in this contention also. The Section does not contemplate any specific application being filed under Section 7(c) and 7(d) of the Act. The Section confers powers on the Board to cancel or set aside any orders passed by the lower authority and certainly it is open to the Board to exercise the said power suo motu whenever it is found necessary."

199). The provisions of Sections 5 and 7 of the Act confer extremely broad powers on the Director and the Board respectively for correcting the mistakes committed by the lower authorities and for the purpose of effectuating the Scheme of the Act and implementing the purpose behind the Act. We are inclined to agree with the view taken in David Pillai's case and M.Veeraswamy's case (supra) that the Director of Settlement as well as the Board of Revenue have suo motu powers to interfere with the orders passed by the lower authorities. The reference is answered accordingly.