A PON ARIVAZHAGAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 15.10.2004 and direct the third respondent Record Officer, Tenkasi to set aside the case which was dismissed for default on 23.10.2000 and to restore the case in T.R.No.11/2000 to his file and disposed of the same on merits.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed a petition before the third respondent under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant Record of Tenancy Act for the purpose of recording his name as a tenant in respect of the lands in question. THE respondent has also filed a counter affidavit opposing the claim. THE said petition came to be dismissed by the third respondent by an order dated 3.10.2000 on the ground that neither the petitioner nor the respondent were present. An appeal was presented before the second respondent in A.P.No.31 of 2000. In the memorandum of grounds of Appeal, the petitioner contended that the Record Officer ought to have noted that the petition filed by the petitioner was posted on 23.10.2000 for filing counter on side of the respondent and the observation made by the Record Officer that the case was posted for enquiry is erroneous. It was further stated that Record Officer could conduct an enquiry only after filing a counter by the respondent as well as necessary documents. THErefore, the prayer in the appeal was to set aside the exparte order and restore the matter to the file of the third respondent. THE respondent filed a counter affidavit in which they have in extenso stated about the merits of the claim they have pleaded that the agreement itself is ab initio void as it is a fraud and the proceedings are collusive in nature and prayed for dismissal of the petition. THE second respondent by an order in A.P.No.31 of 2000 rejected the petition. It was stated that a revision could be filed against the said order before the first respondent and which has been taken up for enquiry and the revision came to be dismissed by an order dated 15.10.2004. In the penultimate paragraph, it has been stated that no documents have been produced and they have not appeared for the adjournments and therefore, the revision is liable to be rejected.

(3.) HEARD Mr. P. Senthur Pandian, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pala. Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. D. Sadiq Raja, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and perused the materials available on record.