V RAJAN CHELLAPPA Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai in the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent, the Special Deputy Collector dated 4.2.2002, which was made against the order of the third respondent, the Tahsildar, dated 31.5.2000.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, the 4th respondent, the Property Officer, the Diocese of Madurai-Ramanathapuram Church of South India Trust Association, Madurai invited tenders for the lease of lands comprised in survey No.384 part measuring an extent of 1.5 acres in Madavakkam village, Madurai and the lands in survey Nos.55/1A and 55/1B to an extent of 5.5 acres in Thiruparangundram village, Madurai taluk. a) It is stated that the petitioner participated in the tender process and he was the successful tenderer and a lease agreement was entered on 5.2.1987 for a period of three years for the consideration of Rs.6420/-. It is stated that the petitioner improved the dry lands by digging a well and erecting a pump set and by planting teak wood, tomato and other food grains and the petitioner is stated to be in possession of the lands even after the expiry of lease agreement. b) After the expiry of the original period of lease, it was extended for a further period of three years from 1.1.1990 to 31.12.1992 by the first respondent on the same lease amount and it was again extended from 1993 to 1995 on the same amount of Rs.6240/- and thereafter, it was extended from 1996 to 1998 by the 4th respondent. c) It is stated that the petitioner continues to be in possession and cultivating the lands. It is stated that when the petitioner sent a letter on 29.5.1999 for extension of lease for a further period of three years along with a demand draft for Rs.6240/-, it was returned by the 4th respondent stating that the lands are required by the 4th respondent for starting a school. d) It was, in those circumstances, the petitioner approached the third respondent by filing an application under sections 4(2) and 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act 10 of 1969, (in short, "Act 10 of 1969") to record him as a cultivating tenant under section 2(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (in short, "Act 25 of 1955"). THE said application in T.R.No.6/97 came to be allowed by the third respondent on 31.5.2000 on the basis that the lands are agricultural lands and the petitioner has been in possession and cultivating the same and therefore, is entitled for the protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. e) It was, against the said order of the third respondent, the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the second respondent in Appeal No.20/2000. However, in the appeal the 4th respondent failed to appear before the appellate authority, viz., the second respondent and therefore, the second respondent dismissed the appeal of the 4th respondent on 4.2.2002. f) Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent preferred a revision before the first respondent in R.P.No.1/2002 and that revision came to be allowed under the impugned order by the first respondent, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) EVEN though the 4th respondent has not filed a counter affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has made his submissions during the course of arguments.