In the present case, the scope of Section 41(1) of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules is crystal clear and therefore, the scope of exercising discretionary power by the High Court in condoning the delay beyond the period contemplated for preferring any appeal under the Act does not arise at all. 14. In view of the above legal position, the objection raised by the Registry is sustained and the S.T.A.SR.No.81961 of 2019 is rejected at the SR stage. Registry is directed to upload this order in the High Court web site and to report the same under neutral citation. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 16-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
STA SR No. 81961 of 2019

1.Jacob John
2.Mary Kutty John
3.Varghese T Varghese

.. Appellants
Vs

1.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.Joint Receiver
T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad
Nilambur Kovilakam, Nilambur
Malappuram District, Kerala .. Respondents

For Appellants : Mr.John Zachariah
for M/s Fox Mandal And Associates

For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar
Additional Government Pleader

ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The Special Tribunal Appeal SR No.81961 of 2019 has been instituted challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2018 passed in C.M.A.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District Judge and Janmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of The Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam confirming the orders of the Settlement Officer (Gudalur Janmam Lands), Udhagamandalam dated 30.03.2009 passed in Rc.V.58122 of 2007.

2. The Registry of High Court, after scrutinising the case papers raised an objection that how a Special Tribunal Appeal is maintainable against the order of the Tribunal dated 09.04.2018 since the delay in filing exceeds 90 days. Hence, this matter is posted under the caption ‘For Maintainability’.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that, prescription of appeal time under an enactment would not preclude the powers of the High Court to condone the delay in exercise of its discretionary powers conferred under the Constitution. He would rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukri Gopalan -vs- Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker reported in AIR (1995) 5 SCC 2272, wherein the Apex Court dealt with the provisions of Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In the said judgment, the Apex Court reiterated the powers of the appellate authority to condone the delay and entertain the appeals filed beyond the period of limitation as contemplated under the special enactment.

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would oppose the stand of the learned counsel for the appellants by stating that Section 41(1) of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) read with Rule 25 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) would make it clear that no appeal is entertainable beyond the period of limitation specifically contemplated under the above provisions.

5. He would rely upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India -vs- Abdul Razaak and Others reported in MANU/TN/5925 of 2024, more specifically Paragraphs 41 and 46, and would submit that, the objection raised by the High Court Registry is in accordance with Section 41(1) of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules. Therefore, the present appeal is to be rejected on the ground of maintainability.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

7. Let us now consider the Scheme under the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969. Section 41(1) of said Act reads thus,

“ 41 (1)Against any decision of the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of section 12 and sections 33 to 40, the Government may, within six months from the date of the decision, and any person aggrieved by such decision may, within three months from the date of such decision, appeal to the Special Appellate Tribunal consisting of two judges of the High Court nominated, from time to time, by the Chief Justice in this behalf:

Provided that the Special Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding three months for the filing of such appeal.”

8. Rule 25 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1974 reads thus,

“25. Time barred application, appeal or revision petition to be dismissed: (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act and these Rules, every application made and every appeal and revision petition presented to the authorities or officers having jurisdiction under the Act and these rules, after the period of limitation prescribed therefor in the Act and these Rules shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence.”

9. A holistic reading of Section 41(1) of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules would amply make it clear that limitation has been specifically fixed under sub-section (1) to Section 41 and the proviso clause in unequivocal terms reiterates that the Special Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding three months for the filing of such appeal.

10. For more clarity, Rule 25(1) reiterates that subject to the provisions of the Act and these Rules, every application made and every appeal and revision petition presented to the authorities or officers having jurisdiction under the Act and these rules, after the period of limitation prescribed therefor in the Act and these Rules shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence.

11. Therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act is clearly excluded under the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969. When the limitation is excluded from the provisions under the Act as well as the Rules as stated above, a question arises whether the High Court can exercise its powers of discretion for condoning the delay and to entertain the appeal. Once the legal principles in this regard are settled and the power of discretion if clarified under the legislation, then no Court is expected to exercise the discretion beyond its scope and spirit. Once the legislative intention is made clear and there is no express power to entertain an appeal beyond the period of limitation and there is no ambiguity in the language employed in the Act and the Rules, it is unnecessary for the High Court to travel beyond the scope of law for exercising its power of discretion, which is uncalled for.

12. Since Section 41(1) of the Act provides for extension of time limit for an appeal to be filed beyond three months and before three months from thereon, it expressively excluded the operation of Section 29 of the Limitation Act. There is no inherent right of appeal. The right of appeal is created through enactment and such right is to be conferred by the Statute. In the absence of any right conferred under the State, no right of appeal would arise. When a right of appeal is a statutory right, it cannot be considered as an inherent right. Such right of appeal including the period of limitation has to be specifically contemplated.

13. In the present case, the scope of Section 41(1) of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules is crystal clear and therefore, the scope of exercising discretionary power by the High Court in condoning the delay beyond the period contemplated for preferring any appeal under the Act does not arise at all.

14. In view of the above legal position, the objection raised by the Registry is sustained and the S.T.A.SR.No.81961 of 2019 is rejected at the SR stage. Registry is directed to upload this order in the High Court web site and to report the same under neutral citation.

(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.)
16-04-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes

KST

To

1.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.Joint Receiver
T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad
Nilambur Kovilakam, Nilambur
Malappuram District, Kerala.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
K.SURENDER J.

KST

STA SR No. 81961 of 2019

16-04-2026