ST ADAIKALAMATHU TRUST Vs. M CHINNADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in Second Appeal No. 26 of 1983 is a public trust and it is plaintiff in O. S. No. 367 of 1980 on the file of the District munsif, Tiruvarur. THE respondents in the second appeal are defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit. THE petitioner in W. P. No. 274 of 1983 is the second defendant in O. S. No. 367 of 1980 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 544 of 1983 is the third defendant in the said suit. THE first respondent in both the writ petitions is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 367 of 1980. As the subject matter and the parties to the second appeal and the writ petitions are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in the judgment in Second Appeal No. 26 of 1983 as per their array in O. S. No. 367 of 1980.

(2.) THE suit O. S. No. 367 of 1989 was filed by the plaintiff-trust for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, namely, an extent of 3 acres in R. S. Nos. 305/2,301/ 9 and 291/6 in Sengalipuram Village , Nannilam Taluk. THE case of the plaintiff-trust is as follows. THE suit properties belong to the plaintiff-trust. THEy were leased out to the first defendant by the plaintiff in the year 1968 and he was cultivating the same till Fasli 1389. During Fasli 1389 a suo motu enquiry was taken underthetamilnadupublictrusts (Regu-lation of administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) by the Special Deputy Collector, Tiruvarur and by order dated 27. 8. 1979 the Special Deputy Collector declared that the first defendant was holding more than the cultivating tenant's ceiling area of 5 standard acres and directed him to surrender the excess land of 3 acres to the plaintiff-trust. THE first defendant voluntarily surrendered the excess land of 3 acres to the plaintiff trust on 5. 2. 1980 and to that effect he has executed a surrender letter in favour of the plaintiff. THE plaintiff took possession of the suit properties on 5. 2. 1980 from the first defendant and there after the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. As defendants 1 to 3 attempted to trespass into the suit properties the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) THERE is no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sec. 2 (5) of the Act defined cultivating tenant as follows: (5) "cultivating tenant" (i) means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied; and (ii) includes: (a) any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement; or (b) the heir of such person if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; or (c) a sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; (iii) does not include a mere intermediary or his heir. " The two main ingredients to become eligible for registering ones name as cultivating tenant in the approved record of tenancy rights are; (1) that there should be a valid tenancy agreement either express or implied in favour of the tenant (2) that the land should be in his possession and he should do personal cultivation by contributing his own physical labour or that of his members of his family. In the present case, so far as the second ingredient is concerned the petitioners satisfy the same, because, there is sufficient material available on record to show that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question. In A. S. No. 57 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, the civil court on the basis of the evidence placed before it, has held that the petitioners who are appellants in the said appeal are in possession of the suit properties. While disposing of the Second Appeal No. 26 of 1983, I have confirmed the said finding of the civil court in A. S. No. 57 of 1982. THERE is also evidence available in these proceedings to show that the petitioners are doing personal cultivation contributing their own physical labour. Coming to the first ingredient, the fourth respondent has pointed out that the evidence let in by the petitioners with regard to the lease deeds executed by them in favour of the original tenant Chinnadurai is contradictory. Even assuming that the petitioners have proved that the lease deeds dated 15. 6. 1979 and 10. 6. 1979 have been executed by them in favour of Chinnadurai, I am of the view, that the said lease deeds are not valid and under the lease deeds referred above, Chinnadurai cannot convey any right in favour of the petitioners for the following reasons; As already pointed out, on 27. 8. 1979 the Special Deputy Collector, Tiruvarur inhisproceedingsn. 76/mnl/dated 27. 8. 1979 passed an order under Sec. 7 of the Act holding that the tenant Chinnadurai possessed more than the cultivating tenant's ceiling area of 5 standard acres and directing that the excess extent of 3 acres of the trust lands in S. Nos. 305/2,301/9 and 291/6 be reverted to the first respondent trust. The appeal filed by the said Chinnadurai before the appellate authority, Thanjavur in A. P. No. 19 of 1981 was dismissed on 17. 3. 1982. It is seen from the order of the Special Deputy Collector (Public-Trust), tiruvarur, dated 27. 8. 1979 that Chinnadurai was granted lease of Survey Numbers 305/2, etc. by the trust on 1. 6. 1968. The finding of the Special Deputy collector in the said order is that the tenant Chinnadurai apart from the trust lands leased out to him, possessed 20-301/ 2 acres of dry and 5-921/2 acres of wet lands in both joint and separate patta which comes to 6-84 standard acres, which is in excess of the cultivating tenant ceiling area of 5 standard acres. No doubt, the 4th respondent while allowing the revision petitions erroneously proceeded on the basis that Sec. 7 (1) of the Act will apply to the case of chinnadurai and that the excess lands held by Chinnadurai as cultivating tenant reverted back to the trust with effect from the notified date that is 1. 4. 1963. Sec. 7 (1) of the Act will not apply to the excess land possessed by Chinnadurai as cultivating tenant because, admittedly, Chinnadurai, was granted lease-of the lands in question by the trust only 1. 6. 1968 long after the notified date. However on that ground it is not necessary to remand the matter to the 4th respondent because the mistake committed by the fourth respondent does not in anyway affect the correctness of the ultimate conclusion arrived at by him. As the lease in favour of Chinnadurai was granted by the Trust on 1. 6. 1968, the provision that will apply to the facts of the present case is Sec. 7 (2) of the act. Sec. 7 (2) of the Act reads as follows: " (2) Where, on or after the notified date, any cultivating tenant under any public trust acquired by sale, lease, gift, exchange, surrender, agreement, settlement or otherwise, any land which together with the other land, if any already held by him, exceeds in the aggregate the cultivating tenant's ceiling area, the possession of the land which is held by the public trust and which is in excess of the cultivating tenant's ceiling area shall with effect from the date such acquisition, revert to the public trust, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf. According to Sec. 7 (2) of the Act if a cultivating tenant acquires any land after the notified date and if as a result of such acquisition the lands in his possession exceeds the cultivating tenant's ceiling area, the excess land in the possession which belong to the public trust should revert back to the lessor trust. Chinnadurai who possessed lands more than the cultivating tenant's ceiling area had no right to sublease the excess lands in his possession to the petitioners, because such excess lands in his possession, which belong to the public Trust had already reverted to the 1st respondent-Trust. Chinnadurai become a tenant under the trust on 1. 6. 1968. The finding of the Special Deputy Collector in his order dated 27. 8. 1979 is that apart from the lease hold lands belonging to the trust chinnadurai owned patta lands measuring 6. 84 standard acres which is over above the cultivating tenant's ceiling limit. It is not the case of the petitioners that Chinnadurai sublet the lands in question and the petitioners executed the lease deeds in his favour even before he acquired the lands in excess of the cultivating tenant's ceiling limit. THEREfore, it has to be held that Chinnadurai sub let the lands in question to the petitioners under the lease deeds dated 15. 6. 1979 and 10. 6. 1979 when he was having lands in excess of the cultivating tenant's ceiling limit, that is after the excess land of 3 acres held by Chinnadurai reverted back to the first respondent-trust, by virtue of Sec. 7 (2) of the Act. After the excess land in the possession of Chinnadurai as a cultivating tenant, reverted back to the trust on his acquiring lands in excess of the cultivating tenant's ceiling limit by virtue of Sec. 7 (2) of the Act, he had no manner of interest in the lands 30 reverted back to the Trust and he cannot convey any right in favour of the petitioners, under the lease deeds dated 15. 6. 1979 and 10. 6. 1979. Consequently, it has to be held that there is no valid tenancy agreements in favour of the petitioners pursuant to which they are in possession of the lands in question. On this ground alone the petitioners are not entitled to get their names recorded as cultivating tenants in the record of tenancy rights in respect of the lands in question.