S R KALIAPPAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2005, challenging the impugned order passed by the revisional authority/first respondent. Mr. S. Parathasarathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order, has briefly submitted that when the petitioner entered into an oral lease agreement with one R. Murugan, the original land owner as a cultivating tenant in respect of the land comprised in Survey No. 121/3 at Pooluvampatti village, Coimbatore (South) in the year 1977, measuring to an extent of 0.87 cents agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- p.m. as rent along with an advance amount of Rs. 3,000/-. On the basis of the said oral lease agreement, the petitioner became a cultivating tenant and his name was also recorded in the revenue records and Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390 describing him as cultivating tenant. There is a well in the above said property together with 5 H.P. Electric motor, in which, the original land owner Murugan had 1/4 share, for which, the petitioner, as a cultivating tenant paid the electricity consumption charges from the date of oral lease agreement.

(2.) When the matter stood as above, the original land owner Murugan sold away the property to the fourth respondent A. Sundararaj and one Gopalsamy, who is the husband of the fifth respondent Shanthadevi and the father of the respondents 6 to 8. viz., Vanathi Ganga, Arathi Ganga and Sindhu Ganga. After purchasing the above said property from the original land owner Murugan, the subsequent purchasers have started to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 1070 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore seeking bare injunction not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner from the said land. The said suit was decreed on the basis of the Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390. which stand in the name of the petitioner, have proved that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant. Pending the above suit, when the petitioner filed an application before the third respondent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 seeking an order to hold him as cultivating tenant, the third respondent/Tahsildar (Record Officer), Coimbatore dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the second respondent/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichy, under Section 6 of the Act in A.P. No. 12 of 2002 (CBE). The second respondent/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichy, taking into account two vital documents viz., the Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390 filed by the petitioner and the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner that he is a cultivating tenant, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the land as cultivating tenant as provided under Section 2(8)(i)(b)(ii)(a)(i)(ii), and thereby allowed the appeal on 17.10.2003 by setting aside the order passed by the third respondent/Tahsildar (Record Officer), Coimbatore. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichy, the fourth respondent Sundararaj and Gopalsamy have filed a revision before the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore under Section 7 of the Act. The first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore without referring to the documentary evidence namely, Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390, which were produced by the petitioner, has erroneously allowed the revision by an order dated 9.4.2005 stating that there was no written agreement of tenancy entered into between the petitioner and the original land owner and the petitioner and also for another reason that the petitioner has not proved that he had contributed his labour. physically as a cultivating tenant in respect of the land in question, by exercising the power under Section 7 of the Act and also directed the petitioner to evict from the land in question.

(3.) It was further submitted by the learned senior counsel that no power has been conferred on the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore under Section 7 of the Act to pass an order of eviction, and hence, he has no right to pass the order of eviction to remove the petitioner from the land in question. Therefore, the impugned order of eviction is liable to be set aside, particularly when the first respondent was given power to consider whether a person is to be treated only as cultivating tenant or not, the first respondent, by exceeding the power given under Section 7 of the Act, wrongly, re-appreciating the entire evidence, took a contrary view as against the Appellate Authority and thereby committed a grave mistake in law in passing the impugned order. He pleaded that while passing the said impugned order, the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore has failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner has contributed his own physical labour. in the land in question. In view of the above said facts, it was pleaded, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.