C RAJENDRAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, NAGAPATTINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The appellant / writ petitioner has filed a petition before the 3rd respondent to registering him as a cultivating tenant in respect of the description of the lands give in Item Nos.1 to 19 in schedule which belong to 4th respondent and according to the appellant / writ petitioner, the 4th respondent had executed the Tenancy Agreement dated 12.06.1983. The 3rd respondent, vide order dated 10.09.1991, after going through the materials concluded that the appellant / writ petitioner did not produce any documents to show that he was cultivating the land in question as cultivating tenant and therefore, dismissed the same, vide order dated 10.09.1991. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and it was also dismissed on 18.01.1993 and remanded the matter onceagain to the Tahsildar, to find out as to whether the appellant is in possession of the land and property. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent in pursuance to the order of remand, has conducted an enquiry and vide order 02.07.1996, has once again concluded that the appellant/writ petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to show that he is carrying on any actual cultivation. The petitioner, once again filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, who, vide detailed order dated 13.06.1997, found that the appellant / writ petitioner / tenant did not produce any evidence to prove his claim and therefore, confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed a revision before the 2nd respondent and vide order dated 16.03.1998, the 2nd respondent has confirmed the same.

(3.) Challenging the legality of the same, he has filed a writ petition and it was entertained and notices were ordered. The learned Judge, after considering the submission and on perusal of the materials has observed that it is for the writ petitioner/appellant to establish about his possession and contribution of his physical labour in respect of the property and all the authorities had concluded that the petitioner has miserably filed to do so and further observed that when such finding have been recorded by the authorities, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the factual finding recorded unless or otherwise, it is established before this Court that the finding recorded before this Court was perverse based on no evidence.