M.DHANALAKSHMI Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Record Officer made in TR.No.19 of 1998 dtd. 24/7/2012 and the consequential order dtd. 22/3/2016 recording the name of the 4th respondent as tenant of the property.

(2.) The 4th respondent filed an application seeking to record his name as tenant in respect of certain property in TR.No.19 of 1998 before the 1st respondent. The petitioner who had purchased the said property during the pendency of the said application filed I.A.No.1 of 2005 seeking to implead herself in the said tenancy record proceeding. The said application in I.A.No.1 of 2005 was allowed by the record officer on 16/8/2005. As against the said order, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Court which was numbered as A.P.No.1 of 2006. The said appeal was dismissed for default on 28/12/2010. Subsequently without notice to the party impleaded, the original petition came to be disposed of on 24/7/2012, exparte, recording the name of the 4th respondent as tenant. The appeal against the order impleading the petitioner which was dismissed for default was restored to file on 10/1/2011. Even during the pendency of the appeal as stated above, the original petition was disposed of without notice to the impleaded party. The appellate Authority viz., Revenue Court, Trichy noted the fact that the original petition has been disposed of and therefore nothing survives in the appeal against the order impleading the petitioner and on the said finding the appeal was closed as there were nothing to be decided in the appeal. This is the first point of injustice or irregular conduct by the officer in this case.

(3.) Once a person has been impleaded and the appeal against the order is pending before the Appellate Authority the Appellate Authority can stay the proceedings before the original authority. In the case on hand the appellate authority has stayed the operation of the order impleading the petitioner. The appellant allows the appeal to be dismissed for default, gets it restored, and persuades the original authority to pass an order in the absence of the person impleaded by projecting the stay order granted by the appellate authority. He thereafter gets the appeal against the order of impleading disposed of as if it has become infrucutous. Very clever but crooked legal brains have worked wonders in this case.