IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.07.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.11564 of 2004 Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram ... Petitioner Vs 1.District Revenue Officer, (Land Tribunal), Chennai -5. 2.A.Seethalakshmi 3.A.Arumainathan 4.T.Haridass ...Respondents (R4 impleaded as per order in M.P.97 of 2001 dated 24.7.2001) PRAYER:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, to set aside the impugned land Tribunal Judgment in LTCMA NO.12/98 dated 1.3.99 and restoring the orders of Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms) Villupuram in A1/6813/93 dated 30.03.1998. For R1 : Mr.M.Dhandapani,Spl.G.P. For R2 and R3 : Mr.S.K.V.Kumar For R4 : No appearance O R D E R This writ petition arises out of SRP.No.4 of 2001 filed before the Tamil nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for short SAT). The Assistant Commissioner of Land Reforms, Villupuram is the petitioner. 2. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.No.11564 of 2004. Even during the pendency of the SRP before the SAT the fourth respondent got himself impleaded in M.P.No.97 of 2001 dated 24.07.2001. The writ petition purporting to challenge the order of the District Revenue Officer, Land Tribunal Chennai -5 made in LT.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.12/98 dated 01.03.1999. It is against the said order the revision was filed under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1961 (for short Act). The revision was not filed as enjoined upon in Rule 26(5) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Special Appellate Tribunal) Rules. Though an application was filed to condone the delay, there is no order of the Tribunal found. Even otherwise, this Court is not trapped by such limitation, but yet the contesting respondents have not been served till date. On the short ground the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Even otherwise the impugned order of the Land Tribunal in the Court of District Revenue Officer, the authority entertained the appeal under Section 78 of the Act against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),Tirunelveli dated 30.03.998. As against the order passed under Section 78 of the Act, an appeal lies under Section 79 to the Special Appellate Tribunal. It has been made clear that under the third proviso to Section 83 of the Act no revision will lie in case where there is an appeal provided to the SAT under Section 79. 4. In the light of the above facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki To District Revenue Officer, (Land Tribunal), Chennai -5. +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 47382 +1cc to Mr.V.Ramesh SR 47780 MBS(CO) km/13.7. W.P.No.11564 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/