PERIATHAMBI GOUNDAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records in B. P. No. 7 of 1975, on the file of the first respondent herein, namely, the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, and quash the order dated 22-11-75. One of the questions involved in this writ petition is the scope and effect of S. 16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1960 (Tamilnadu Act X of 1960) hereinafter referred to as the Act; introduced by the Tamilnadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights (Amendment) Act 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act 84 of 1972) with effect from 27-11-1972.

(2.) When the writ petition came up for hearing before our learned brother, Mohan J., the learned Judge held that two important questions of law came up for consideration, apart from the merits of the case, namely (1) "What is the scope and extent of the revenue authority constituted under the Act? (2) What is the interpretation to be placed on the decision reported in Muniandi v. Rajangam Iyer 1976-1 Mad LJ 344?"According to the learned judge, the interpretation of the section in Muniyandi v. Rajangam Iyer 1976-1 Mad LJ 344: (AIR 1976 Mad 287) referred to above did not seem to be warranted, having regard to the decision of this court in Sankaralinga Thevar v. Thirumalammal, 1977-1 Mad LJ 189. Having regard to the importance of the two questions and since the questions a likely to rise in very many cases, the learned learned Judge considered matter that this is a fit matter to be decided by a Division Bench of this court. When the matter came up before a Division Bench, the Bench felt that there was an apparent conflict of opinion as between the above two decisions of the two Division Benches and hence the matter was directed to be placed before a larger Bench and that is bow the matter has come before us.

(3.) We shall now briefly refer to the facts of the case which have given rise to the present writ petition. The matter relates to an extent of 3.76 acres in S. No. 537/A of South Boothinatham Village, Udumalpet taluk, Counbatore Dt. The petitioner in the writ petition on 18-1-1972 applied under the provisions of the Act to the third respondent herein, namely, the Record Officer, for registration of his name as the tenant. The third respondent recorded the name of the petitioner on 10-4-72, as the tenant in respect of the lands in question and the draft record was published on 27-4-1972. In June 1972, respondents 4 and 5 preferred applications under Sec. 3 (13) of the Act seeking the deletion of the petitioner's name from the draft record. The contention of the 4th respondent was that he was the owner of the lands, that he was personally cultivating the lands and that there were no tenants on the lands. The contention of the 5th respondent was that he was the tenant in respect of the above lands and that the petitioner's name should be removed from the record of tenancy rights and his name should be substituted as the tenant in respect of the lands in question. On 27-12-72, the 3rd respondent therein rejected the applications of respondents 4 and 5 and confirmed the entry of the petitioner herein as the tenant in respect of the lands in question. Against the said order of the 3rd respondent dated 27-12-1972, respondents 4 and 5 preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent herein, who is the appellate authority under the Act. Since some fresh evidence was tendered before the appellate authority mid both the parties wanted to examine witnesses to prove their respective cases, the appellate authority remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh disposal. After the matter was remanded, the 3rd respondent enquired into the matter afresh and by his order dated 30-11-1974, deleted the name of the petitioner and directed the substitution of the name of the 5th respondent as the tenant in respect of the lands in question. Against this order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent and the second respondent by his order dated 31-3-1975, allowed the appeal and registered the name of the petitioner herein as the tenant in respect of the lands in question. The fifth respondent herein preferred a revision petition to the first respondent here in against the order of the second respondent, and the first respondent allowed the revision petition, deleted the name of the petitioner herein and restored the order of the third respondent registering the name of the fifth respondent herein as the tenant in respect of the lands in question. It is to quash this order that the present writ petition has been filed.