RASU PILLAI Vs. ADDL TAHSILDAR MAYILADUTHURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition claims that he was an occupant of a kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act 1971 (Act XL of 1971), hereinafter referred to as the Act. On 19-6-1971 he applied for the kudiyiruppu patta, seeking determination of the question as to whether he was in such occupation or not. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist cultivating nanja lands of about 4.13 acres belonging to the 4th respondent as a tenant and further he is occupying a site measuring 7 cents in S.No. 108 in Mannampanthal vattam, Mayiladuthurai taluk, and the superstructures put up thereon, both belonging to the 4th respondent. The petitioner would characterise his occupation of this site of an extent of 7 cents as occupation of a kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Act. The 4th respondent contested the case of the petitioner, stating inter alia that the demise was not only of this site of 7 cents but also of the superstructures put up thereon as a single unit, under a tenancy arrangement while the petitioner served the 4th respondent as a car driver, and since the petitioner has been removed from service, he could not continue to be in occupation of the premises and in any event, there could not be a claim for kudiyiruppu under the Act by the petitioner. The 4th respondent also raised a controversy over the claim of tenancy put forth by the petitioner with regard to the nanja lands of about 4.13 acres, with which we are not very much concerned in these proceedings in view of the point raised. The first respondent heard the matter, opined that the site and the superstructures belonging to the 4th respondent would not be an impediment with regard to countenancing the claim of the petitioner for kudiyiruppu patta and following a pronouncement of Sethuraman, J. in Visalakshi K. v. Maruthamuthu Pillai, (1981) 94 Mad LW 514, granted the petitioner the kudiyirurppu patta in respect of the 7 cents of site along with the superstructure thereon since as per the provisrons of S.3(2) of the Act, the superstructure shall also vest in the occupant of the kudiyiruppu. The 4th respondent appealed and the appeal came to be heard and disposed of by the 2nd respondent and by the order impugned in the writ petition, the second respondent reversed the order of the first respondent holding that the demise was not only of the site but also of the superstructure and hence the provisions of the Act could not be invoked. The second respondent chose to follow the pronouncement of Suryamurthy J. in T. K. Narayana Pillai v. Naganatha Iyer (1981) 94 Mad LW 253. The order of the second respondent is being put in issue in this writ petition.

(2.) There is a controversy as to whether the petitioner is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. The petitioner claims himself to be an agriculturist. This is not being accepted by the 4th respondent. It has come out from the materials placed in the case that while the petitioner was serving the 4th respondent as a driver, he was inducted into possession of the premises, both the site and superstructure - and his services have been terminated subsequently and further, he was also given a lease of nanja lands of an extent of 4.13 acres. The first respondent proceeded that the petitioner is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, on the ground that he must be cultivating this extent of nanja lands. However, in the order passed by the second respondent, I do not get indication of any positive adjudication on this question On behalf of the 4th respondent, it is contended before me that even assuming that the petitioner is an agriculturist, yet, the demise by way of a lease in favour of the petitioner being not only of the site of an extent of cents, but also of the superstructure thereon as a single unit, both belonging to the 4th respondent, the provisions of the Act could not at all be invoked, and, the subject-matter of demise and the occupation by the petitioner was Hot of a kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute before me that the demise in favour of the petitioner by way of lease was not only of the site but also of the superstructure, standing thereon as a single unit. What he should contend is that by virtue of S.3(2) of the Act even though the superstructure belongs to the 4th respondent, it would come to vest in the petitioner and the occupation of the petitioner would still be characterised as kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Act and hence the rights under the Act could be claimed and granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the pronouncement of Sethuraman J. referred to above. As against this, Mr.B. Kumar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, would submit that the very definition of 'kudiyiruppu in S.2(8) of the Act speaks about the site of any dwelling house or hut occupied, either as tenant or as licensee, by any agriculturist or agricultural labourer and furthermore, the definition of 'tenant' under S.2(11) of the Act contemplates tenancy of the site alone and hence only if the demise is of the site alone and not of the site and the superstructure as a single unit, the occupant of such a site could claim kudiyiruppu rights and the definition of 'kudiyiruppu' under the Act does not and cannot take in the demise of lease of a premises consisting of site and superstructure as a single unit.

(3.) Before I assess the contentions put forth by the respective counsel, I would like to advert to the relevant provisions of the Act. S.2(8) defines 'kudiyiruppu' as follows -