S. TAMILVANNAN Vs. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT has been submitted that the lands in S.Nos.30/1, with an extent of 6.83 acres and 30/3 with an extent of 2.20 acres, (with a total extent of 9.03 acres of lands) in Kappaloor Village, belongs to the fourth respondent temple and the said lands were leased out to the petitioner under the lease deed, dated 7.8.1889. From the said date, the petitioner has been cultivating the lands and paying the lease amount to the temple as a cultivating tenant, regularly, without any default. The petitioner was enjoying the property as per the lease deed executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that the fourth respondent temple had also issued receipts in evidence of the rental amounts paid by the petitioner. The last receipt has been issued by the fourth respondent, on 19.6.1995, by receiving a sum of Rs.1,300/ - for the fasli 1404. While the petitioner was in effective cultivation of the lands, he had filed an application, in T.R.No.4/95, before the third respondent, under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (X of 1969) to register his name as a tenant in the tenancy records. The third respondent, after conducting an enquiry, as contemplated under the Act, by considering the materials produced by the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein, had rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the said petition. Thus, the petitioner was recorded as a cultivating tenant in the tenancy records, by an order, dated 25.9.1995.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the third respondent, the fourth respondent temple had filed an appeal in A.P.No.70/95, before the second respondent, appellate authority, on 11.2.1995. The second respondent, after considering the materials and the documents submitted on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the fourth respondent, had wrongly come to the conclusion that the order passed by the third respondent is not correct. Accordingly, the order of the third respondent was set aside, and the appeal filed by the fourth respondent temple had been allowed, by an order, dated 13.10.1997. The second respondent while setting aside the order of the third respondent, dated 25.9.1995, had failed to consider the various materials available on record and the relevant provisions of the Act and on a wrong assumption that the properties were not leased out to the petitioner and that it was only a licence which had been given, to the petitioner by the fourth respondent temple, for a period of three years. As per the conditions of the lease deed, the petitioner is not a cultivating tenant and the lands were not leased out for agricultural purposes. The petitioner had also produced additional documents before the appellate authority, the second respondent herein, to establish his tenancy rights. However, the evidence produced by way of additional documents was not properly considered by the second respondent, while deciding the appeal. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner had filed a revision before the first respondent in R.P.No.29/98. The first respondent, without considering the documents and the evidence filed in respect of the claims made by the petitioner, dismissed the revision by the impugned order, dated 12.9.2000. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.