KUPPAMMAL Vs. VELLINGIRI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions raise for consideration a very important question as to the scope of Section 4 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (XXV Of 1955 ). The two petitions arise out of the same order of the Revenue divisional Officer ana seek respectively writs of certiorari and mandamus in regard to matters Which we shall elucidate a little later.

(2.) THE petitioner is a land owner. The properly now in dispute whose extent is 92 acres 67 cents was purchased by her under a deed of sale dated 23rd May 1955. The first respondent Vellingiri Gounder and another Pappias Naidu (not a party to the petition) were the tenants previously in cultivation of these lands. As the petitioner insisted upon her vendor giving her vacant possession as a condition of her purchase of the lands, the latter negotiated with the first respondent and hig co-lessee, and as a result of an agreement the tenants were paid a sum of Rs. 6000, as consideration for their surrendering immediate possession of the lands. They executed a document therefor on 20th May 1955. It will be seen that the sale deed was executed "in favour of the petitioner three days after this relinquishment and surrender. Subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner started cultivating the lands personally, and while she was doing so, madras Act XXV of 1955 was passed, the same having received the assent of the president on 24th September 1955. Claiming rights under this enactment, to whose terms we shall advert presently, the first respondent applied to the revenue Divisional officer, Coimbatore, for an order directing his restoration to possession of the lands of which he had relinquished possession and which were the subject of purchase by the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner-landowner, who was impleaded as a respondent to that application raised two defences: (1) that on a proper construction of Section 4 of the enactment a tenant who had voluntarily surrendered possession of the lands was not entitled to claim restoration, and (2) that even if Section 4 was capable of that construction the tenant owned and possessed lands exceeding the extent specified In Section 4 (2) (i) and war, therefore not entitled to the order for restoration. The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected both these defences; and the petitioner has invoked the -jurisdiction of this Court under Article 224 of the constitution to set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer or. the ground that it was beyond his jurisdiction and it was also vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. This is the subject-matter of W. P. No. 576 of 1956.