Macbara Trust vs The Land Tribunal (District ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2288 Mad

                                                                                      CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003


                         BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 13.03.2023

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

                                             CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003 and
                                              CMP(MD) No.14267 of 2003

                    Macbara Trust, Mandapam,
                    Ramanathapuram District
                    Rep by its Trustee,
                    M.Mohamed Shajahan
                    Marakayar Mahal,
                    Mandapam,
                    Ramanathapuram                                                   ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs

                    1.The Land Tribunal (District Revenue Officer),
                      Chennai – 5.

                    2.The Authorised Officer & Assistant Commissioner
                      (Land Reforms), Madurai.                        ... Respondents
                    (Cause title substituted vide order of Court dated 07.02.2012 made in CMP 56 of 2012)


                    Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to
                    set aside the order of the first respondent Land Tribunal (District
                    Revenue Officer, Chennai, dated 29.01.2001 in A1/11/2001 rejecting


                    1/12



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                            CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003


                    the Appeal against the order of the second respondent, the authorised
                    officer & Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Madurai, dated
                    21.07.1999 in A-3/MR-I/12M/RAM/37-72 and to set aside the said
                    order of the authorised officer and Assistant Commissioner (Land
                    Reforms), Madurai.
                                  For Petitioner         : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
                                  For Respondents        : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh
                                                           Additional Government Pleader

                                                    ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order

passed by the first respondent, District Revenue Officer, Chennai in

A1/11/2001 dated 29.01.2001, rejecting the appeal filed by this

petitioner against the order passed by the second respondent in A3/MR-

I/12M/RAM /7/72 dated 26.07.1999.

2.By the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, the

first respondent rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, on the ground

that it was filed beyond the period of limitation and aggrieved over the

same, this present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Trust is a

Public Religious Charitable Trust, which was established in the memory

of the wife of one Khan Bahadur Kasim Mohammed Marakayar and it

comes under the supervisory control of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board.

The objects of the Trust are recitation of Quoran every day, to make

payment to Hajims, to feed the poor and to impart training in Arabic

language and Islamic tenets. As on 01.03.1972, the petitioner Trust was

in possession of 90.70 ordinary acres of land equivalent to 37.83

standard acres of land in A.Puthur Village and Komukkottai Village of

Paramakudi Taluk. The holdings of the Trust was taken up for

consideration by the then Authorised Officer, under the Tamil Nadu

Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Limit) Act 58/61 as amended by Act

37/72 and held that the Trust is a public Trust of religious nature and

exempted the Trust from the operation of the above Act. As the lands

were not yielding income, the then Trustee moved the Wakf Board to

sell the lands by way of auction and accordingly, an extent of 39.38

acres of land has been sold by auction sale conducted on 11.04.1977 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

thereafter, the petitioner Trust is in possession of the remaining 51.32

acres of land. Subsequently, the second respondent re-examined the case

of the petitioner, considering the objects of the petitioner Trust has held

that as the petitioner Trust is purely charitable in nature and hence it is

eligible to hold only 5 standard acres and passed an order, dated

29.03.1993, under Rule 11(1) (h) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms

(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1962, declaring an extent of 32.83

standard acres of land as surplus. As against which, the petitioner

preferred an appeal in LTCMA.12/93, before the Land Tribunal,

Thanjavur and the Land Tribunal, by its Judgment dated 28.10.1994 set

aside the order of the Authorised Officer & Assistant Commissioner,

Land Reforms, dated 29.03.1993, remanding the matter back to the

Assistant Commissioner to pursue the matter as per the procedure laid

down under the Act, as such, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an

order dated 21.07.1999, declaring an extent of 32.83 standard acres of

land of the petitioner Trust as surplus. Challenging the same, the

petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Land Tribunal, Chennai

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

on 05.01.2000 and the same was rejected by the Land Tribunal on the

ground of limitation, vide its endorsement in A1/11/2001, dated

29.01.2001. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision

Petition is filed.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that as against the order dated 28.07.1999, declaring that the petitioner

Trust is eligible to hold only five standard acres of land, within the

ceiling area, as per Section 5(1) (d) (I) of the Act, the petitioner trust

filed an application in the form of Review before the second respondent

herein on 10.08.1999 and that representation/review was returned by the

second respondent on 07.10.1999, with an endorsement that the

petitioner has to work out his remedy by way of an appeal before the

first respondent. Therefore the petitioner has filed the appeal before the

first respondent on 05.01.2000 and it was returned on 03.04.2000 for

want of requisite court fee. Hence, the petitioner re-presented the same

on 10.01.2001 along with necessary Court fee. But, the first respondent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

has dismissed the appeal under the pretext that it was filed only on

10.01.2001. The learned counsel further submits that if the period for

limitation is calculated from 07.10.1999, on the date, on which, review

application was returned by the second respondent, the appeal preferred

by the petitioner can be construed as it was filed well within the

limitation period as per the Act. Hence, he prays to set aside the order

impugned in this Revision Petition.

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents submits that the petitioner Trust has filed the appeal

only on 10.01.2001, prior to which, it was filed without affixing the

necessary Court fee and therefore, the first respondent has rightly

dismissed the petition on the ground of non-affixing of necessary court

fee. In the absence of necessary court fee, the appeal preferred by the

petitioner on 05.01.2000 cannot be construed as a proper presentation,

in the eye of law. Hence, there is no necessity to interfere with the order

of the Tribunal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

6.This Court considered the rival submissions made on

either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7.The issue for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition

is whether the order passed by the first respondent on the appeal,

preferred by the petitioner Trust that it was barred by limitation is

correct or not. On perusal of the records shows that the petitioner Trust

filed a representation to review on 10.08.1999 and it was returned with

an endorsement that the available remedy to the petitioner was to prefer

an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Chennai and accordingly,

the appeal was also filed before the authority on 05.01.2000 and it was

returned on the ground of deficit court fee. Subsequently, it was re-

presented on 10.01.2001 with requisite court fee. But the authority has

rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner Trust on the ground of

limitation, considering the date of filing of the appeal as 10.01.2001.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the period of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

limitation as per Section 78 of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of

Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 is 90 days and the relevant provision under

Section 78 of the Land Reforms Act is extracted as under:-

78. Appeal to Land Tribunal:-

(1)Against any decision of the authorized officer under Section 9(2)(b), 10(3), (4), (5), 16(3) (a) (iii), 20, 22, 50(4), 51(1), (2), 52, 61(3)(b) or 102(2) (b), the Government may, within ninety days from the date of the decision, and any person aggrieved by such decision, may (within thirty days) from the date of such decision, appeal to the Land Tribunal. (2)The Land Tribunal may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the period mentioned in sub- section (1), [but not exceeding thirty days], if it is satisfied that the party concerned had sufficient cause for not presenting it within the said period. (3)On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Land Tribunal, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard, shall -

(a) determine a case finally:

(b) remand a case

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

(c) take additional evidence or require such evidence to be taken by the authorised officer.

8.The second respondent by order dated 21.07.1999 has

declared 32.83 acres as surplus, against which, the petitioner is having

an appeal remedy before the Land Tribunal as per Section 78 of the

Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Limit) Act. However,

the appeal has to be preferred within a period of thirty days. The

petitioner, instead of filing an appeal before the Land Tribunal, has filed

a review by way of a representation before the second respondent on

10.08.1999 and the same was rejected by the second respondent on

07.10.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the

Land Tribunal on 05.01.2000. Though the petitioner claims that he has

filed the above appeal before the Land Tribunal within 90 days from the

order of the second respondent dated 07.10.1999, the petitioner ought to

have filed the appeal within 30 days. This application was also filed

without sufficient Court fee and therefore, the application filed on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

05.01.2000 was returned for insufficient Court fee and was re-presented

on 10.01.2001. The Tribunal considered the date of filing on 10.01.2001

with proper Court fee and rejected the appeal.

9.There is no provision for review, however, the petitioner

claims that he has filed a review wrongly and the review was dismissed

on 07.10.1999. Therefore, this Court was under the impression that the

petitioner has wrongly preferred a review and on the representation of

the petitioner that the limitation is 90 days and that he has filed the

above application within 90 days from the date of rejection of review by

the second respondent, was inclined to allow this revision petition.

However, on a closure look, it appears that this petitioner has submitted

a representation on 10.08.1999 and the same was rejected on

07.10.1999. The period of limitation as per Section 78 of the Tamil

Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Limit) Act is only 30 days and

for Government, it is 90 days. However, it was projected as if it is filed

within the limitation of 90 days from the date of rejection of review by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

second respondent. There is no scope for appeal, if it is filed beyond 30

days from the date of decision, in the absence of any statutory provision

enabling for condonation of delay.

10.For the foregoing reasonings and discussions, this Court

is not inclined to entertain this civil revision petition and the same is

accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

13.03.2023 Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. vrn

To

1.The Land Tribunal (District Revenue Officer), Chennai – 5.

2.The Authorised Officer & Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms), Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

vrn/gk

Order made in CRP(MD)No.1915 of 2003

13.03.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis