SUBRAMANIAM Vs. V PERIANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.No.1493 of 1983 arises out of the order in T.C.T.P.No.14 of 1978 and C.R.P.No.1494 of 1983 is against the order in T.C.T.P.No.15 of 1978 on the file of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Madurai.

(2.) THE respondent claims to be a cultivating tenant. THE petitioners have purchased the property in the year 1975. At that time the father of the respondent was cultivating the property shown in the schedules to the petitions. THE father of the respondent* was cultivating under the original owner of the land. THE respondent-s father died and the respondent and his brother were cultivating the lands. But the brother of the respondent, Karuthaperiyan, has surrendered possession of the petition land he was cultivating. THE respondent is a Government servant working as a Junior Assistant in the Government High School at Nilakottai taluk and is cultivating the land with hired labour and therefore will not be entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. It is in those circumstances that the petitioner filed these two petitions out of which these two revisions arise for eviction of the respondent.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the tenant as the heir of his father will be entitled to the protection of the Act, provided he is considered as a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The Amending Act 9 of 1969 shows that -the heir of such person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family for the cultivation of such land, will be a cultivating tenant.- In other words, in order to fall within the meaning of the term -cultivating tenant-, the tenant should carry on personal cultivation which means he should contribute his own physical labour or that of any member of his family. Bearing this definition in mind, if we analyse the evidence in this case, it would be found that R.W.1 the tenant, has nowhere his evidence stated that he is contributing his physical labour which includes -physical strain-, use of muscles and sinews. He says that he and the members of his family are cultivating the property for generations, that he knows agricultural operations, that his wife is an illiterate woman and she also knows agricultural work and that the allegation that he is not cultivating the land, is wrong. R.W.2, the President of the Panchayat, says in one sentence that the respondent is working on his field. The petitioners- witnesses and the petitioners say that the respondent is cultivating the land only through hired labour. The respondent is a Junior Assistant working in the office of a Government High School and it is now pointed out that he is working in Chengapadai Government High School, Tirumangalam, which is about 25 miles away from the petition schedule property. The question whether under such circumstances he could contribute his physical labour is a matter that has not engaged the attention of the Authorised Officer. Further, the respondent in his evidence does not say that his wife is also working on the land contributing her own physical labour. He only says that she being an illiterate woman knows agricultural work. She has not been examined in Court to prove that she is working on the land. Even though the Authorised Officer has generally stated that various documents as well as the admission of the petitioners show that the respondent and his family members are engaged in personal cultivation of the land, there is no clinching finding that the respondent or his wife has contributed physical labour. It is also pointed out by Mr.Santhanagopalan that there is no admission on the part of the petitioners that the family members of the respondent are engaged in personal cultivation. The documents would only show that the respondent has been treated as a tenant and has paid some rent as a tenant, but that may not be a proof of the fact that the respondent is contributing his physical labour or that his wife is contributing her physical labour.