N CHOCKAYYA PILLAI TRUSTEE OF PUDUKKADAI CHATRAM KURUVADI NANNILAM TALUK THANJAVUR DISTRICT Vs. R SUBRAMANIA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of the dispute in the writ petition relates to a punja land in R. S. 95/6 of an extent of 18 cents in Kuruvadi village, Nannilam taluk, Thanjavur district. THE writ petitioner has filed an application before the second respondent under Sec. 5 of the Tamil Nadu agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as' Record of tenancy Rights Act')to delete the name of the first respondent from the record of the tenancy rights for the said village, maintained in the office of the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the land in question is a dry land used only for tethering cattle and for storage of hay-rick, and the land was never used for cultivation or horticulture and hence, the land does not fall within the definition of the lands under Sec. 2 (4) of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act. THE entry in the record of tenancy rights found in favour of the first respondent to the effect that he was a tenant in respect of the said land was made, according to the petitioner, without his knowledge and hence, alter coming to know of the same, he has filed the application under Sec. 5 of the Record of tenancy Rights Act before the second respondent for the deletion of his name.

(2.) THE first respondent resisted the said application on the ground that the disputed property as well as another extent of 2 acres of nanja land were taken on lease by his father Rajangam and the first respondent and the members of his family were cultivating the disputed land.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the application preferred by the writ petitioner under Sec. 5 of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act does not lie, because the grounds on which the writ petitioner has filed the application for the modification of the entries in the record of tenancy rights would not come within the purview of the scope of Sec. 5 of the Record of Ten- ancy Rights Act and when the application itself does not lie, and the Revisional Authority was perfectly justified in rejecting the application as not maintainable and was also justified in allowing the revision petition on that score.