Madras High Court
C.M.I.Ashram & Mica Mount Estate vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2021
CMP.No.13391 of 2020 in STA SR.No.37680 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 07.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CMP.No.13391 of 2020 in STA SR.No.37680 of 2020
C.M.I.Ashram & Mica Mount Estate
rep. by Fr.Sibi Francis,
S/o.Joseph, Gudalur Bazaar Post,
Gudalur, The Nilgiris. ... 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, Pandalur,
The Nilgiris.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13391 of 2020 in STA SR.No.37680 of 2020
5. The Joint Receiver,
T.N.Godavaraman Thirumalpad,
Nilambur Kovilakam,Nilambur
Malapuram District, Kerala State. ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 4 Rule 9 (4) of A.S.
Rules praying to condone the delay of 61 days in filing of
STA.SR.No.37680 of 2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.John Zachariah
For Respondents : Mr.Manikandan, G.A.,
1 to 4
ORDER
The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to
condone the huge and unexplained delay of 61 days in filing of above
STA.SR.No.37680 of 2020.
2. Mr.John Zachariah, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that after the Settlement Officer, Gudalur Janmam
Lands, Collectorate, Ootacamund, The Nilgiris, the 2nd respondent herein,
passed an order dated 31.12.2015 rejecting the request of the petitioner to
grant Ryotwari Patta under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13391 of 2020 in STA SR.No.37680 of 2020
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 24/69 in respect of
Old Survey No.145/1A, 145/1B, 140 and 33/1A1A-Resurvey No.373/2,
373/3, 373/4 having an extent of 12.72 acres in Gudalur Village, Gudalur
Taluk, The Nilgiris District under Section 12(1) of the Act, an appeal was
filed in CMA.No.32/2016 within time 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 31.12.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent Settlement Officer,
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein by the impugned
judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019. 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. But the petitioner has filed the
appeal before this Court only on 05.08.2020 as the copy application for the
order passed in CMA.No.32/2016 dated 30.10.2019 was applied belatedly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13391 of 2020 in STA SR.No.37680 of 2020
Further, 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 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 has
applied for copy application belatedly and thereafter, this
STA.SR.37680/2020 has been filed on 05.08.2020 before this Court with a
delay of 61 days. Therefore, the delay is neither willful nor wanton, but
only due to the aforesaid reason. Hence, the delay of 61 days in preferring
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
unexplained delay of 61 days in preferring the above appeal. The reason
being that if it is a simple or reasonable delay in preferring the appeal, this
Court, in usual course always condones the delay. Therefore, sufficient
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13391 of 2020 in STA SR.No.37680 of 2020
cause shall be given in the affidavit for condoning the delay in filing the
appeal. 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. Equity favours a vigilant
rather than an indolent citizen. This being the tenet of law, condoning the
unexplained delay of 61 days would cause prejustice to other side.
Therefore, in the present case, when no sufficient cause has been shown to
condone the unexplained delay of 61 days in preferring the above appeal,
we are not inclined to condone the delay of 61 days.
5. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition fails and the
same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected
STA.SR.No.37680 of 2020 is rejected.
(T.R.J.,) (G.C.S.J.,)
07.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
tsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13391 of 2020 in STA SR.No.37680 of 2020
T.RAJA, J.
and
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
tsi
CMP.No.13391 of 2020 in
STA SR.No.37680 of 2020
07.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
