CRP No. 2060 of 1977, S. Sundarajan v. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, through Justice Ramanujam in CRP No. 2060 of 1977, delivered this judgment on 8 February 1979 concerning a delayed review application before the Land Tribunal, Tirunelveli. The Court held that the Tribunal can review its own orders, but cannot use section 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse delay in filing a review application. The supplied text ends before the Court's final disposal of the revision petition.
What the case concerns
The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered a revision petition filed by S. Sundarajan against an order of the Land Tribunal, Tirunelveli. The Tribunal had excused the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli for a considerable delay in filing an application to review an earlier appellate order.
The Authorised Officer explained that the earlier order had to be examined at different levels and that higher authorities had to be consulted. The delay was therefore said not to be wilful. S. Sundarajan argued that the Tribunal was not a court and could not excuse the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Findings recorded by the High Court
The High Court examined the powers given to Land Tribunals by Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 and the Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962.
- A Land Tribunal is a persona designata, meaning an authority appointed for a specific function, and is not a court.
- Section 77(3) gives the Tribunal all powers vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Those civil court powers include the power to review an order.
- Section 78(3), which describes how appeals may be disposed of, does not remove or restrict the Tribunal's review power.
- Rule 11 separately lists a review power for the Authorised Officer because that officer has only the particular civil procedure powers listed in the rule.
- A review petition before a civil court normally had to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order, according to the judgment.
- Section 80 applies only specified provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 to Tribunal appeals. The High Court therefore held that section 5 could not be used by the Land Tribunal to condone delay in filing a review petition.
Who may be affected
The judgment is relevant to parties in land reform proceedings who want a Land Tribunal to reconsider an order. It confirms that the Tribunal has review power, while limiting its ability to excuse a late review application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The supplied text does not contain a ruling about ownership, sale, registration or title to any particular property. It also ends before stating whether CRP No. 2060 of 1977 was finally allowed or dismissed.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Can a Tamil Nadu Land Tribunal review its own order?
Yes. The High Court held that the civil court powers given to the Land Tribunal under Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961 include the power of review.
Can the Land Tribunal use section 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse a delayed review application?
No. The High Court held that the Tribunal is not a court and that section 80 applies only specified Limitation Act provisions, which do not include section 5.
Does this judgment decide ownership or title to land?
No ownership or title issue is decided in the supplied text. The dispute concerns the Land Tribunal's review power and whether it could excuse delay.
Was CRP No. 2060 of 1977 ultimately allowed or dismissed?
The supplied text ends before the High Court's final disposal of the revision petition, so the result is not stated.
