VARADARAJULU Vs. JEAN LOUIS SANJEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are obliged to interfere in writ appeal accepting a subtle legal submission made by Mr.Suren-dranath, learned Counsel for the appellant in this writ appeal. The first respondent moved the second respondent under section 5 of the Pondicherry Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the -Act- for a bare and an independent adjudication that the appellant is occupying the land in question only from January, 1974 and he is neither an agriculturist nor an agricultural labourer, but a broker in selling cows and hence he should not be recognised as a Kudiyiruppudar under the Act. The second respondent rejected the plea of the first respondent that the appellant is occupying the land from January, 1974, but, however, the second respondent gave an adjudication and a declaration that the appellant is not an agriculturist within the definition of section 3(3) of the Act and hence the appellant is not entitled to get the benefits of the Act. The appellant preferred an appeal to the third respondent and the third respondent also concurred with the view of the second respondent and dismissed the appeal, challenging the orders of the second and the third respondents. The appellant came to this Court by way of W.P.No.396 of 1980. Mohan, J. who heard the writ petition, found no warrant to interfere with the orders of respondents 2 and 3 and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) In this appeal, directed against the order of the learned Judge, learned Counsel for the appellant would urge that the second respondent lacked competency and jurisdiction to give an independent and a bare adjudication and declaration that the appellant is not an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer and is not entitled to get the benefits of the Act. In this connection, the learned Counsel drew our attention to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 4 reads as follows:

(3.) The Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) . Act, 1971, Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971, hereinafter referred as -Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971- contains a provision, section 4 thereof, identical to section 5 of the Act. By virtue of Tamil Nadu Act 6 of 1976. Section 3-P was introduced into Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971 and that provision enables an Authorised Officer in the State of Tamil Nadu to decide, amongst other questions, the question as to whether a person is an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer. We do not find any such provision in the Act. The scope of the jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971 to decide the question as to whether the site is a Kudiyiruppu or not came up for consideration before N.S.Ramaswami, J. in Ganeshan v. Madurai Achari, (1977) T.L.N. J.4.T7= (1978) 91 L.W.6 and the learned Judge observed as follows: