ARULMIGHU AGNEESWARASWAMI TENANTS CO OPERATIVE FARMING SOCIETY Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER REVISIONAL AUTHORITY TANJORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner who is a Tenants Cooperative Farming Society originally represented by its President but now represented by its Special Officer has filed the above writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first repondent in R.P. 7/82 dated 16-8-1982 and of the second respondent in R.T.A.A.P. No. 1/81 A2 dated 29-6-1981.

(2.) THE writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the same has stated as follows:? THE fifth respondent, which is a public trust within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ?Public Trusts Act, is the owner of the lands in question and other large extent of lands and the writ petitioner is the cultivating tenant in respect of those lands. As a matter of fact, S. 45 of the Public Trusts Act deems cert ain tenant farming societies specified in Schedule II to be governed by the provisions of the Act as specified in Schedule II and the fifth respondent is shown as item No. 14 in the said schedule. THEre is no dispute among the parties that the fourth respondent who is a member of the petitioner society was the cultivating tenant in respect of the lands in question comprised in R.S. No. 79/2 measuring about 2.67 acres of No. 62 Tirupugaloor village in Nannilam Taluk. THE fourth respondent, was found to be in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling prescribed for a cultivating tenant and to get over the same, appears to have subleased the lands in question in favour of the third respondent. On being appraised of the position, the Special Deputy Collector (Public Trust), Tiruvarur, by his proceedings dated 3-10-1979, after referring to the fact that the 3rd respondent is cultivating the land after getting the same from the fourth respondent, held that the transfer of right not channelised through the Public Trust, cannot be a recognised one. THE said authority also noticed the fact that the third respondent has not executed any lease deed nor got his name recorded as a tenant in the Record of Tenancy Right and that the present cultivation was treated as benami and has to be ordered to be reverted to the Public Trust. While doing so, the said authority observed that if the third respondent owns not more than five standard acres in all capacity, he may be recognised as tenant obtaining a lease deed executed by him and on his failure to do so, directed the Public Trust to take possession of the lands and lease out the same to eligible persons within the time stipulated therein.

(3.) ON the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed in the impugned orders, it could be seen that there is no legally acceptable evidence worth acting upon to prove that the third respondent was cultivating the lands. Neither his name has been earlier recorded in the Record of Tenancy nor his name finds a place in the village cultivation aceounts nor are there any'receipts evidencing payment of rent by him directly to either the society or the trust. The receipts' produced admittedly only stand in the name of the fourth respondent and consequently there is absolutely no material whatsoever to give credence to the stand of the third respondent that he has been in possession of the lands lawfully inducted therein as a leasee or a sublessee. Further under the provisions of S. 2 (5) of the Public Trusts Act, the person claiming to be a cultivating tenant should be doing so under a tenancy agreement, express or implied of any land belonging to another, meaning thereby the personn who is entitled in law to lease or sublease the property concerned is one who holds either proprietary interest or tenancy rights. Having regard to the conclusions arrived at by me that as per the provisions of the Public Trust Act, the petitioner society alone can be considered to be such tenant, there is no question of the third respondent claiming to be a sub-tenant of somebody else who cannot in law be recognised as a tenant. Even if the owner has to lease it, he could do so only in favour of the farming society. The orders of the first and the second respondents are liable to be set aside on this short ground and are, therefore, hereby set aside.