Madras High Court
Bindu Soosan John vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 January, 2021
CMP.No.13342 of 2020 in STA SR.No.252 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CMP.No.13342 of 2020 in STA SR.No.252 of 2020
Bindu Soosan John ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Collector of Nilgiris,
Collectorate, Ootacamund,
The Nilgiris.
2. Settlement Officer
(Gudalur Janmam Lands),
Gudalur, Gudalur Bazaar Post,
The Nilgiris.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Gudalur Division, Gudalur,
The Nilgiris.
4. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Gudalur,
The Nilgiris.
5. Joint Receiver,
T.N.Surendranath Thirumulpad,
Nilambur Kovilakam Nilambur,
Malapuram District, Kerala. ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13342 of 2020 in STA SR.No.252 of 2020
Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 4 Rule 9 (4) of A.S.
Rules praying to condone the delay of 316 days in re-presentation of
STA.SR.No.252 of 2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.John Zachariah
For Respondents : Mr.A.Amar
1 to 4
ORDER
The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to
condone the huge and unexplained delay of 316 days in re-presenting the
STA.SR.No.252 of 2020.
2.Mr.John Zachariah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that after the Settlement Officer, Gudalur Janmam Lands,
Gudalur, Gudalur Bazaar Post, The Nilgiris, the 2nd respondent herein,
passed an order dated 19.12.2017 rejecting the request of the petitioner to
grant Ryotwari Patta under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 24/69 in respect of
R.S.No.491/1 having an extent of 1.56 acres in Gudalur Village, Gudalur
Taluk, The Nilgiris District under Section 12(1) of the Act, an appeal was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13342 of 2020 in STA SR.No.252 of 2020
filed on 14.10.2019 before the District Judge of Nilgiris and the Jenmam
Estate Abolition Tribunal at Ootacumund, The Nilgiris, who also after
considering the case of the petitioner, while confirming the order dated
19.12.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent Settlement Officer, dismissed the
appeal filed by the petitioner herein by the impugned judgment and decree
dated 19.09.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has been advised to file
further appeal before this Court. Accordingly, the present Statutory Appeal
was filed before this Court.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that after
the dismissal of the appeal by the District Judge of Nilgiris and the Jenmam
Estate Abolition Tribunal at Ootacumund, The Nilgiris, a Statutory Appeal
has to be filed within 90 days. Accordingly, this STA.SR.252/2020 has been
filed on 02.01.2020 before this Court, but the same was returned by the
Registry on 09.01.2020 which has to be re-presented curing of the defects
on or before 19.01.2020. However, since the issue regarding the lands
falling within the ambit of Section 17 of Gudalur Jenmam Estates
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 is being agitated by the
Association in which the petitioner is also one of the members before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13342 of 2020 in STA SR.No.252 of 2020
Apex Court in W.P.(C ) No.202/1995 and the issue was also pending before
the Apex Court, it was felt that the orders passed by the Apex Court would
have a direct bearing on any appeal that may be filed before this Court,
therefore, the petitioner did not take any steps to cure the defects and bring
the matter for hearing before this Court. In the meanwhile, 316 days in
re-presenting the appeal has occurred. Therefore, the delay is neither willful
nor wanton, but only due to the aforesaid reason. Hence, the delay of 316
days in re-presenting the appeal before this Court may be condoned, it is
pleaded. Learned Counsel would also submit that if this Court feels that
with any terms, the delay may be condoned, the petitioner would also abide
by the same.
4.But we are unable to find any sufficient cause to condone the huge
and unexplained delay of 316 days in re-presenting the above appeal. The
reason being that if it is a simple or reasonable delay in re-presenting the
appeal, this Court, in usual course always condones the delay. Delay in
representation is also equivalent to delay in filing appeal, therefore,
sufficient cause shall be given in the affidavit for condoning the delay. This
Court also invariably by mere asking, condones the delay in re-presentation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13342 of 2020 in STA SR.No.252 of 2020
if it is a reasonable delay of 100 days or even 200 days. But beyond limit,
we cannot condone any huge and unexplained delay. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Baig [1999
Supp (5) SCR 197], held that the doctrine of ''delay defeats justice and
equity'' in the matter of grant of relief shall be borne in mind while
entertaining the application for delay, for, discretionary relief can be
provided to the deserving parties who do not sleep over their rights. Equity
favours a vigilant rather than an indolent citizen. This being the tenet of
law, condoning the huge delay of 316 days would cause pre-justice to other
side. Therefore, in the present case, when no sufficient cause has been
shown to condone the huge and unexplained delay of 316 days in
re-presenting the above appeal, we are not inclined to condone the long
delay.
5.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected STA.SR.No.252 of 2020
is rejected.
(T.R.J.,) (G.C.S.J.,)
06.01.2021
vga
T.RAJA, J.
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13342 of 2020 in STA SR.No.252 of 2020
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
vga
CMP.No.13342 of 2020 in STA SR.No.252 of 2020
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
