27. Thus, in the conspectus of the aforestated facts and the proposition of law in exercise of power in respect of limitation, wherein, no statutory prescription is provided, it is well settled that no application for review or revision or appeal is maintainable beyond the reasonable time. Decidedly, the land was transferred to the predecessors of the third respondent, i.e., Overseas Communication Service, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, for valuable consideration on 29th March, 1954, creating third party right.
...
30. As a sequitur, we have no hesitation in holding that the first respondent had rightly rejected the appellant's application as being barred by delay and the learned Single Judge has justly dismissed the writ petition upholding the order passed by the first respondent.?
8.The Judgment relied upon the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the scope and applicability of the Section 11 of Act XXVI of 1948 as rightly submitted to the learned Additional Government Pleader. Section 11 mandates the Assistant Settlement Officer to consider the issue of Ryotwari Patta after being satisfied with the status of the individual as a ryot. If anybody aggrieved over the non consideration or failure to issue the Ryotwari Patta, then appeal would lie under Section 12 and thereafter. Therefore, any request under Section 11 made to an officer other than the settlement officer will have to be treated as appeal or revision as the case may be. In such a case, the rigour of G.O.Ms.No.714, C.T. & R.E dated 29.06.1987, would come into play. It is not an administrative order, but an amendment to the Rule made. It is a trite law that when a statue prescribes a period, then a Court of law cannot reconsider and bring the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, we are of the view, that the order passed by the Division Bench referred supra would govern the case. In such view of the matter there is no merit in the appeals.
9.Accordingly, the Writ Appeals stand are dismissed. However, insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the land in question will not come under the settlement and therefore the purview of Act XXVI of 1948 being Natham land cannot be considered in this proceedings. It is a specific case of the appellants that similarly placed persons have been granted patta by the Revenue Thasildhar. If that is the case, it is well open to the appellants to workout their remedy in the manner known to law as we are not expressing anything on the aforesaid issue. Similarly, on the case as sought to be exposed by the 5th respondent. However, we make it clear that before consideration of the patta, the Revenue Thasildar will have to hear the parties, especially the fifth respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.
To:
1.The Special Commissioner cum Director of Survey and Settlement Survey Buildings, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The District Collector, Theni District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
4.The Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam, Theni District..