M. BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 25.03.2013 setting aside the order passed by the second respondent and directing the third respondent to take necessary steps to lease out the property in dispute in public auction.

(2.) According to the petitioner, an extent of 10.52 acres of dry land in Survey Nos. 179 and 180 of Krishnapuram Village, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District belongs to the third respondent herein. The above said lands were leased out to the fourth respondent who is none other than the father of the writ petitioner. Since the fourth respondent committed some default in payment of rent and also attempted to convert the lands as cattle sandy, the third respondent filed a petition before the Joint Commissioner, HR and CE, the second respondent herein for evicting him from the above said lands under Sec. 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the eviction petition, the petitioner got himself impleaded as a party respondent and during the enquiry, he paid the entire arrears before the third respondent. Considering all these facts, the second respondent, by an order dated 02.11.2011, recognised the petitioner as a cultivating tenant of the land and based on the above said order, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the third respondent on 30.11.2011, and he has also made some improvement in the said lands.

(3.) Aggrieved over the said order passed by the second respondent, the fourth respondent herein filed a revision petition in R.P. No. 3 of 2012 before the first respondent. After filing revision petition, pursuant to a family conciliation, the fourth respondent did not pursue the revision petition. But the first respondent, without dismissing the above revision petition for default considered the case on merits and passed the impugned order, setting aside the order passed by the second respondent and also directed the third respondent to lease out the property in public auction.