Madras High Court
Pudukudi Parambil Abdul Rahim vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2021
CMP.No.13383 of 2020 in STA SR.No.57111 of 2018
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.13383 of 2020 in STA SR.No.57111 of 2018
Pudukudi Parambil Abdul Rahim ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Collector of Nilgiris,
Collectorate, Ootacamund,
The Nilgiris.
2. Settlement Officer
(Gudalur Janmam Lands),
Collectorate, Ootacamund,
The Nilgiris.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Gudalur Division, Gudalur,
The Nilgiris.
4. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Gudalur,
The Nilgiris.
5. The Joint Receiver,
T.N.Godavaraman Thirumalpad,
Nilambur Kovilakam, Nilambur,
Malapuram District, Kerala State. ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13383 of 2020 in STA SR.No.57111 of 2018
Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 4 Rule 9 (4) of A.S.
Rules praying to condone the delay of 582 days in representation of
STA.SR.No.57111 of 2018.
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 582 days in representing the
STA.SR.No.57111 of 2018.
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 03.03.2009 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
O.S.No.43/2, 43/1Apt, 46B/1A3pt, 46B/1A4pt having an extent of 7.83
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13383 of 2020 in STA SR.No.57111 of 2018
acres in O' Valley Village, Gudalur Taluk, The Nilgiris District under
Section 12(1) of the Act, an appeal was filed on 23.07.2009 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 03.03.2009 passed by the 2nd
respondent Settlement Officer, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner
herein by the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2018. 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.57111/2018 has been filed on 24.07.2018 before this Court, but the
same was returned by the Registry on 10.08.2018 which has to be
represented curing of the defects on or before 20.08.2018. However, since
the issue regarding the lands falling within the ambit of Section 17 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13383 of 2020 in STA SR.No.57111 of 2018
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 did not take any
steps to cure the defects and bring the matter for hearing before this Court.
In the meanwhile, 582 days in representing the appeal has occurred.
Therefore, the delay is neither willful nor wanton, but only due to the
aforesaid reason. Hence, the delay of 582 days in representing 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 582 days in representing the above appeal.
The reason being that if it is a simple or reasonable delay in representing the
appeal, this Court, in usual course always condones the delay. Delay in
representation is also equivalent to delay in filing appeal, therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13383 of 2020 in STA SR.No.57111 of 2018
sufficient cause shall be given in the affidavit for condoning the delay. This
Court also invariably by mere asking, condones the delay in representation,
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 582 days would cause prejustice to other
side. Therefore, in the present case, when no sufficient cause has been
shown to condone the huge and unexplained delay of 582 days in
representing 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.57137 of 2018 is rejected.
(T.R.J.,) (G.C.S.J.,)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMP.No.13383 of 2020 in STA SR.No.57111 of 2018
07.01.2021
T.RAJA, J.
and
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J.
tsi
CMP.No.13383 of 2020 in
STA SR.No.57111 of 2018
07.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
