RAJANAYAKAM Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER NAGERCOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to Sa. 1.17089/93 dated 24.9.1993 on the file of the District Revenue Officer, the first respondent herein confirming the order of the second respondent made in No.K.R.No. 192 of 1992, dated 8.2.1993, quash the same and direct respondents 1 and 2 to issue Kudiyiruppu Patta to the petitioner in the plot having an extent of 2 cents in original S.No.3715/107 (R.S.No.23418) R.C.Street, Vilavancode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

(2.) THE petitioner applied to the second respondent for grant of Kudiyiruppu Patta in respect of the above mentioned property. He has filed the application in the prescribed form found at page No.5 of the typed set. He also made an application dated 16.6.1992 praying for grant of Kudiyiruppu Patta in his favour. The second respondent passed the order No.K.R. 192/92, dated 8.2.1993 rejecting his application dated 16.6.1992 stating that on enquiry it was found the the petitioner is vending fish and is having hut at door No.7 -72. It was further found during enquiry that the applicant was neither an agricultural labourer nor a rural artisan. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order dated 8.2.1993 passed by the second respondent, took up the matter in appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, after hearing the parties through their learned counsel passed the impugned order dated 24.9.1993 confirming the order passed by the second respondent. In the said order reference is made to the order dated 18.6.1993 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8503 of 1984.

(3.) THE third respondent has filed the counter -affidavit opposing and resisting the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the property in question originally belonged to one Chandran who got delivery of the property through Court in execution of a decree in O.S.No.206 of 1123 ME (Malayalam Era) on 27.11.1980. The mother of the petitioner took the building in the said property on monthly rent from the said person Chandran. The third respondent purchased the said property from Chandran on 29.7.1983. Subsequent to the purchase of the property, the mother of the petitioner did not -pay rent to the third respondent as agreed. Hence, he filed a suit O.S.No.426 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif -s Court, Kuzhithurai for recovery of suit building and arrears of rent. That suit was decreed on 23.1.1989. The petitioner is in occupation of door No.7 -72A and in respect of the said property O.S.No.334 of 1985 is pending. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of either the Act 38 or the Act 76, cannot be accepted. It is specifically denied that the petitioner is either an agriculturist or a rural artisan. He does not satisfy the definition of either agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan so as to claim benefit either under the Act 71 or the Act 76. It is further stated that the petitioner nowhere has claimed that he is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan. In the absence of any such claim, the petitioner is not entitled to the patta and as such, the authorities have rightly rejected his request. It is also submitted that the in - come of the petitioner was not only Rs. 150 per month, in fact, he is a tailor earning Rs.250 per day from 1992. He was in Saudi Arabia in the years 1990 and 1991 and was earning a lot by tailoring. Thus, the third respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.