V CHINNACHAMY Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER VIRUDHUNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 06.04.1999, under which the first respondent while confirming the order of the second respondent dated 20.01.1997, has rejected the revision filed by V.Chinnachami, the original writ petitioner.

(2.) PENDING disposal of the writ petition, the sole writ petitioner died and his legal representatives have been brought on record as petitioners 2 to 9. One of the sons of the writ petitioner, viz., Bharathi, who has been impleaded as 8th petitioner, has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition wherein it is stated that the land measuring 1 acre and 40 cents comprised in Survey No.722 in Kansapuram Village was leased out to his father V.Chinnachamy in the year 1970 by one Palpandi @ Sadaiyandi and the said Chinnachamy has been cultivating from the date of lease and therefore, he is a cultivating tenant as per the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act,1955, and the third respondent has recorded his name as a tenant under the said Act after following the procedure prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (X of 1969) (in short, "Act X of 1969).

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that originally when the third respondent has recorded the name of Chinnachamy as tenant, the name of the owner was stated as Palpandi, while in the records the name of the owner is stated as Sadayandi S/o.Karuppasamy Moopanar, and it was after finding out that Palpandi is different from Sadayandi and having come to the conclusion that the previous enquiry was not properly conducted, the third respondent has deleted the name of Chinnachamy, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority. Further, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners have a right of appeal to the Special Commissioner (Land Administration) and without exhausting the appellate remedy, the writ petition is filed and therefore, according to him, in the presence of alternative remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable. He would also submit that regarding modification of the order passed under Section 5(3) of Act X of 1969, statutory appeal is provided.