RAJAMANICKAM Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are directed against the orders passed by District Revenue Officer, Nagapattinam, in the revision under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, (hereinafter called "the Tenancy Act"), setting aside the order of the Revisional Authority and the Appellate Authority.

(2.) Though the impugned orders relate to proceedings under the Tenancy Act, the main dispute centres around the tussle between on the one side the two writ petitioners herein being Ex-servicemen and on the other side, the fourth respondent claiming that he was a cultivating tenant under the original land owner Meenambal, whose holdings were declared as excess under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, (hereinafter called "the Ceiling Act". While the petitioners are claiming assignment of the land in their favour declared as excess land, the fourth respondent claiming to have been cultivating tenant under the original owner, claimed preferential right of assignment being a cultivating tenant as provided under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules. As on date the proceedings for assignment under the said Rules is stated to have been concluded in favour of the fourth respondent/cultivating tenant on the ground that his name stands entered in the Record of Tenancy and therefore, he is entitled to preference in terms of the said Rules. According to the petitioners, recognition of the fourth respondent as a cultivating tenant under the original owner was erroneous and they hope that if the said entry in the Record of Tenancy is set aside, then there would be consequential entitlement for assignment. Therefore, they initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Tenancy Act for modification of the entry which recognises the fourth respondent as the tenant. The petitioners succeeded before the original authority and also the Appellate Authority. However, the revision petitions filed by the fourth respondent were allowed in his favour. Hence, the above two writ petitions by the two Ex-servicemen.

(3.) It may be pointed out at this stage that in the order of the Revisional Authority which is impugned herein, the merits of the disputes were not gone into. The Revisional Authority had allowed the revision only on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, petitions for modification of entries as sought for by the petitioners herein, were not maintainable. The said issue arises under the following circumstances.