Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs M.Chidambaranathan (Deceased) on 26 August, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.18816 of 2000 and W.P.M.P.No.27251 of 2000 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. By its Chairman, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer/Civil Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Papanasam Sub-Division, Papanasam, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioners Vs 1.M.Chidambaranathan (deceased) 2.The Tahsildar, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sub-Collector, (Revenue Court), Tirunelveli. 4.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli. 5.C.Selvaganapathy 6.C.Premalatha ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent made in Ce.Ma.No.3/98 dated 10.08.1999 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunaraj, Standing Counsel for TNEB For R.1 : Died For RR2 to 4 : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Spl.G.P., Assisted by Mr.N.Sakthivel, GA For RR.5 & 6 : No Appearance O R D E R
Whether the lands belonging to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board are exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act ? and Whether the tenant of an agricultural land belonging to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is entitled for protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 ?. These are the interesting questions involved in this writ petition.
2.The facts of the case are as follows:-
Mr.M.Chidambaranathan (deceased the first respondent herein) claimed that he was a cultivating tenant of the land comprised in S.No.1111 at Vikramasingapuram, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, measuring 0.68 acres. According to Mr.M.Chidambaranathan, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a cultivating tenant for more than two decades. The land admittedly, belongs to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the TNEB). He was also paying rent regularly to the TNEB.
3.While so, the Assistant Engineer (Civil), of TNEB, Papanasam issued a memo to Mr.M.Chidambaranathan calling upon him to hand over vacant possession of the land. There was also an attempt to dispossess Mr.M.Chidambaranathan from the said land. Therefore, Mr.M.Chidambaranathan filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.300 of 1971 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram against TNEB seeking a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the TNEB and its officials from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property as the cultivating tenant and for other reliefs.
4.In the written statement filed before the Civil Court, it was contended by the TNEB that Mr.M.Chidambaranathan was only a licensee and not a cultivating tenant. It was also contended that the licence was cancelled and thereafter, Mr.M.Chidambaranathan continued to occupy the said land only as a trespasser. By judgment and decree dated 04.12.1972, the learned District Munsif however, held that Mr.M.Chidambaranathan was only a lessee and therefore, he was entitled for decree for permanent injunction but not for the other reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the learned District Munsif decreed the suit, in part.
5.As against the said decree and judgment passed by the learned District Munsif, the TNEB filed an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 1973. During the pendency of these proceedings, Mr.M.Chidambaranathan filed a separate appeal in A.S.No.14 of 1973 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in respect of the reliefs which were denied by the learned District Munsif. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli by judgment and decree dated 31.01.1975, dismissed both the above appeals thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. As against the said common decree and judgment of the First Appellate Court, Second Appeals were filed before this Court in S.A.Nos.1811 & 1812 of 1975. Both the Second Appeals were dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 28.04.1998.
6.In the mean while, Mr.M.Chidambaranathan filed a Form- V application before the Record Officer under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (Act X of 1969) (hereinafter referred to as the RTR Act) seeking to record his name as a tenant under the TNEB in the approved record of tenancy rights. Before the Record Officer, the TNEB took a specific plea that the RTR Act, is not applicable to the lands belonging to the TNEB. It was also contended that Mr.M.Chidambaranathan was not entitled for the benefits under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the CTP Act). The Record Officer, Ambasamudram in T.R.No.28/1994 negatived the said contentions of the TNEB and ordered for recording the name of Mr.M.Chidambaranathan as a tenant in the record of tenancy rights by order dated 18.10.1995. As against the same, the TNEB filed an appeal to the Sub-Collector/Appellate Authority under the RTR Act at Tirunelveli. Before the Appellate Authority, the same plea was taken by the TNEB saying that the RTR Act is not applicable to the lands belonging to the TNEB. The Appellate Authority by order dated 19.06.1997 in Appeal No.13/96 dismissed the said appeal thereby confirming the order of the Record Officer. As against the same, the TNEB filed a statutory revision before the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli. The District Revenue Officer by order dated 10.08.1999, in Revision No.3 of 1998, dismissed the said revision thereby confirming the order of the Record Officer. As against the same, the petitioner/TNEB is before this Court with this writ petition.
7.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. During the pendency of these proceedings, Mr.M.Chidambaranathan/ the first respondent herein died and therefore, the respondents 5 and 6 herein have been impleaded as the legal representatives of the first respondent. But the respondents 5 & 6 have not made appearance before this Court though notices were served on them.
8.The fact that, Mr.M.Chidambaranathan and his legal representatives have been in possession and enjoyment of the property cannot be disputed at this length of time in view of the earlier civil litigation which came up to this Court by way of Second Appeals in S.A.Nos.1811 & 1812 of 1975. The plea of TNEB before the Civil Court that Mr.M.Chidambaranathan was only a licensee was negatived. It has been ultimately held by the Civil Court that Mr.M.Chidambaranathan was only a lessee of the said property. Therefore, it is not open for the TNEB now to contend that Mr.M.Chidambaranathan is only a licensee and since the licence was cancelled, as of now, he is only a trespasser. The respondents 5 and 6 being the legal representatives of deceased Mr.M.Chidambaranathan, claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the property in question and now, they are cultivating the said land contributing their physical labour and therefore, it cannot be denied that they are the tenants of the said land, as the said decision has once for all become final.
9.With the above factual background, the interesting question now to be decided is whether the RTR Act is applicable to the lands belonging to the TNEB. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on Section 19 of the RTR Act to substantiate his contention that the lands belonging to the TNEB are exempted from the purview of the said Act. For better understanding, Section 19 of the RTR Act is extracted below:-
19.Exemption,-Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any land owned by the Central Government or any State Government, or any local authority.
Explanation.-In this section local authority means-
(a)the Corporation of Madras;
(b)any municipal Council;
(c)any panchayat or panchayat union Council constituted or deemed to have been constituted under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXV of 1958);
(d)any township committee constituted or deemed to have been constituted under any law for the time being in force; and
(e)the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board constituted under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1961).
10.A perusal of Section 19 of the RTR Act would go to show that there is no specific mention about the exemption of lands belonging to the TNEB. The said provision only exempts the lands belonging to the Central government or any State Government or any local authority. Admittedly, the TNEB is not a local authority as explained in Section 19 of the Act and therefore, in my considered opinion, Section 19 does not exempt the lands belonging to the TNEB from the purview of the Act.
11.Now, let us have a cursory glance through Section 8 of the CTP Act, which reads as follows:-
8.Act not to apply to lands owned by Central Government, State Governments, Etc.-Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any land owned or taken on lease by:-
(i)the Central Government or any State Government or any local authority;
(ii)any company or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or any State Government; or
(iii)any University constituted by any law.
12.A perusal of the above provision would clearly go to show that the said provision is not applicable to any land owned or taken on lease by the Central government, State Government or any local authority or any company or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or State Government or any University constituted by any law. Here, the TNEB is a Corporation controlled by the State Government. Thus, so far as the CTP Act is concerned, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to a land belonging to the TNEB.
13.Now, one may have a doubt as to how a person who is a tenant under the TNEB can have his name entered in the RTR Act, when, he is not entitled for the benefits of the CTP Act. The distinction is fine and the intention of the legislature is also so obvious. If one compares Section 19 of the RTR Act and Section 8 of the CTP Act, it will keep things beyond any doubt that the legislature did not want the RTR Act to be inapplicable to the lands belonging any company or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or State Government whereas, under Section 8 of the CTP Act, the legislature has exempted the lands belonging to any company or corporation owned or controlled by Central Government or State Government or any University constituted any law from the purview of the CTP Act.
14.When we compare these two provisions viz., Section 19 of the RTR Act and Section 8 of the CTP Act, we have to necessarily look into the definition of certain terms as made in both the enactments. In the RTR Act, the term cultivating tenant has not been employed. Section 2(8)(i) of the RTR Act defines only the term tenant. Section 2(8)(i) of the RTR Act reads as follows:-
2(8)(i)tenant in respect of any area in the State (other than the Kanyakumari district)-
(a)means in relation to any land to which the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants CTP Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955), applies a cultivating tenant as defined in Clause (aa) of Section 2 of the Act and includes-
(i)a mattuparamdar referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of section 7 of the Tiruchirappalli Kaiaeruvaram and Mattuparam Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXVI of 1958); and
(ii)a possessory mortgagor, who, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, with the possessory mortgagee contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land subject to possessory mortgage; and
(b)means in relation to any land to which the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu LVII of 1961), applies a cultivating tenant as defined in clause (5) of Section 2 of the Act;
15.Section 4-(1)(a) of the RTR Act mandates that a land which is under the occupation of a tenant should be entered in the approved record of tenancy rights. In Section 3 of the RTR Act, the term cultivating tenant has not been employed and instead, the legislature has consciously employed the term tenant. The object of the Act is to provide for the preparation and maintenance of record of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural lands in the State of Tamil Nadu.
16.Now turning to the CTP Act, the object of the Act is to protect the cultivating tenants in certain areas in the State of Tamil Nadu from unjust eviction. According to Section 3 of the CTP Act, no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part thereof by or at the instance of his landlord, whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise. Apart from the said provision, there are other provisions such as Section 4 of the CTP Act which give enormous rights to the cultivating tenants. According to Section 4(b) of the CTP Act-Execution of Lease shall be made in triplicate in the prescribed form which does not require payment of either stamp duty or registration. As per Section 6 of the CTP Act, no civil Court shall, except to the extent specified in Section 3(3), have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. Since, the said Act is a special enactment, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act more particularly, Chapter V of the Act are not applicable. If a landlord wants to evict a cultivating tenant he cannot resort to the provisions of the transfer of property act and instead, he can resort to the provisions of the CTP Act and other allied enactments. Thus, the CTP Act is a measure to protect the interest of the cultivating tenants who are contributing their own physical labour in the cultivation of the lands.
17.Section 2(aa) of the CTP Act defines the term cultivating tenant as follows:-
2.(aa)Cultivating tenant-
(i)means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied; and
(ii)includes-
(a)any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement;
(b)the heir of such person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land;
(c)a sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; or
(d)any such sub-tenant who continues in possession of the land notwithstanding that the person who sublet the land to such sub-tenant ceases to have the right to possession of such land; but.........
17.Here, it needs to be kept in mind that the legislature has not employed the term tenant as has been employed in the RTR Act. It is obvious that the term tenant as employed in the RTR Act has got wider meaning whereas the term cultivating tenant has got a narrow meaning. Thus, a person who is not a cultivating tenant for the purposes of the CTP Act may be a tenant for the purposes of RTR Act. In other words, every cultivating tenant as defined in the CTP Act is a tenant as defined in the RTR Act and not the vice versa.
18.Under Section 8 of the CTP Act, since, the lands belonging to the Central Government or State Government or any local authority or any company or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or State Government or any University constituted by the law, are exempted from the purview of the CTP Act, the provisions of the said Act, are not applicable and so, a tenant who is cultivating the land belonging to any of these institutions is not a cultivating tenant as defined in the CTP Act and so, he shall not be entitled for the protections granted under the CTP Act. Therefore, it is Crystal clear that in respect of the lands belonging to any one of these institutions which are under the cultivation of a tenant, only Chapter V, of the Transfer of Property Act, is applicable and so, these institutions may resort to evict the tenants under the said provisions.
19.Under the RTR Act, the legislature has omitted to incorporate any company or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or State Government or any University constituted by any law because, the intention of the legislature is that under the RTR Act, the fact that the land is under the cultivation of tenant should be recorded. At the same time, it needs to be mentioned that simply because the same has been recorded in the approved record of tenancy rights, it does not mean that such a tenant is protected by the CTP Act. In other words, though his name is entered in the approved record of tenancy rights, as the tenant of the said land, he shall not be entitled for the protection under the CTP Act.
20.Now, turning to the facts of the present case, the lands belonging to the TNEB have been exempted from the purview of the CTP Act under Section 8 of the Act and therefore, Mr.M.Chidambaranathan was not a cultivating tenant as defined in the said Act. But, as defined in the RTR Act, he was a tenant and therefore, his name should be included in the record.
21.A perusal of the order passed by the authorities below would go to show that they have held that Section 19 of the RTR Act does not exempt the lands belonging to the TNEB from the purview of RTR Act. I concur with the said findings of the authorities below. But, at the same time, I want to clarify that the lands belonging to the TNEB are exempted from the purview of the CTP Act and therefore, the respondents 5 and 6 who are the legal representatives of Mr.M.Chidambaranathan are not entitled for any protection under the CTP Act. TNEB is at liberty to invoke the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act if it intends to evict the respondents 5 and 6.
22.With the above clarification, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.08.2013 jbm Index: Yes Internet: Yes To
1.The Tahsildar, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub-Collector, (Revenue Court), Tirunelveli.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli.
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
Jbm W.P.No.18816 of 2000 26.08.2013