SUBBU REDDIAR Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in R.Dis. No. 189131/1982 dated 7.12.1983.

(2.) THE petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, claim that they are owners of the land measuring about 2.17 acres in Survey No. 364/6 of Balakrishnapatti village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, and that the second respondent claiming himself to be a tenant in respect of an extent of O. 85 acre out of the said 2.17 acres moved the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) to have his name recorded as a tenant. THE Tahsildar, Musiri, before whom the application was filed, is said to have rejected the application on 10.5.1982. THE appeal filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri also appears to have been rejected by the Appellate Authority on 18.10.1982. THEreupon, the second respondent filed a revision under S. 7 of the Act and the revisional authority, by the impugned proceedings dated 7.12.1983 set aside the orders of the authorities below and directed the registration of the name of the second respondent as tenant in the tenancy record relating to the land in question. Aggrieved, the owners of the land have filed the above writ petition.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY the claim of the second respondent as an heir cannot be countenanced, unless he can be shown to be one of the heirs for the purpose of law relating to succession. The question of heirship is to be always determined with reference to the personal law relating to succession of the parties claiming such benefits. In respect of Hindus the non-testamentary law relating to succession is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 3(f) defines that an heir means any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under this Act. It is not the claim of any one particularly of the second respondent that he was given any rights to succeed the deceased Konda Mooppan by any testament and consequently the claim has to be considered in the light of the provisions contained under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A perusal of S. 8 of the said Act, with the Schedule to the Act would go to show that on the claimed relationship of the second respondent, he cannot be considered to be an heir of either class I or class II and consequently the claim of the second respondent could not be recognised as an heir of the deceased cultivating tenant. The order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated above, alone. That apart, I am of the view that the first respondent without proper or due application of mind, has chosen to interfere on mere surmises with the well considered findings of the original and appellate authority that the second respondent was not entitled to claim benefits as a tenant so as to entitle him to be recorded as a tenant in respect of the property claimed by him under the provisions of the Record of Tenancy Act. For all the reasons stated above, the order of the first respondent is hereby set aside and the writ petition shall stand allowed as prayed for, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.