AZHAGU KARUPPANAM AMBALAM Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the tenants who had been inducted into possession of the land through the public auction can claim the benefits of Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act 1969 herein called as Act 10/1969. The public temple (4th respondent) is the owner of the property and there is no controversy over the position that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Public Trust (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act 1961, hereinafter called as Act 57/61 would apply to the landlord.

(2.) The property under dispute belongs to Arulmigu Ammachi Ayyanar Kovil, Madurai District. The petitioners are the tenants who had been inducted into possession being the successful bidders in the public auction. Continuing in possession, even after the lease period, they claim rights of cultivating tenant and sought for entry of their names under Act 10/1969. The Tenancy Record Tahsildar rejected their application. The Appellate Authority/Special Deputy Collector, allowed the appeal in their favour. The temple preferred, the revision before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai. The revisional authority held that the lessee under auction lease for a period of one year, cannot claim the benefit of cultivating tenant. The revisions were allowed in favour of the temple. Hence, the above writ petitions.

(3.) Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the tenants/petitioners contends that having regard to the definition of "tenant" in Act 10/1969 read with the definition of "cultivating tenant" in Act 57/1961, any person who had been put in possession of the property as a tenant would be entitled to the benefits of the Acts. According to him, the intention of the legislation as could be gathered from Sections 5 & 6 of Act 57/1961, which requires a public trust to lease out lands in excess of 20 standard acres, is that poor agricultural workers should be benefited.