PICHAI AMMAL Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of Writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent in his T.R.No. 50/90 (A8) dated 14.4.1988 confirming the order of the 1st respondents in his S.R.T.R.No. 4/92, dated 10.1.1993 and to quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to record the petitioner's name as cultivating tenant in respect of lands at S.Nos. 66/A2 and 66/A3 in Ariyamangalam Revenue Village, Trichy District measuring to an extent of 2.66 acres.

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are these. The fourth respondent, Sri Kanchi Kamakodi Peedathipathi Mutt, Kumbakonam is the owner of the lands at S.F.Nos. 66/A2 and 66/A3 to an extent of 2.66 acres at Ariyamangalam Revenue Village, Trichy Taluk, the said lands were originally let out to the father of the 5th respondent one Muthuraja. Subsequently, the petitioner became sub -tenant under the 5th respondent on executing a deed to the effect on 29.1.1977.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application before the third respondent Record Officer and Tahsildar, Trichy under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') to register her name as a cultivating tenant after deleting the name of the 5th respondent and his father who have no interest in the said lands. The 5th respondent opposed the said application by contending that there were no sub -lease and he had only allowed the petitioner to exploit the lands for a term of four years and one and half -a -year respectively as a mode of discharge for adjusting his earlier dues to the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the documents marked as Exhibits Al to A4 to prove the sub -lease as well as his possession. He has also marked list receipts and cash receipts issued by the land owners. However, the third respondent dismissed the application of the petitioner by an order dated 14.4.1988 in T.R. No. 50/80 (A8), dated 14.4.1988.