Madras High Court
S.R.Kaliappan vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 February, 2013
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 22.02.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.16966 of 2005 S.R.Kaliappan .. Petitioner vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore. 2.The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichy. 3.The Tahsildar (Record Officer), Coimbatore (South). 4.A.Sundararaj 5.G.Shanthadevi 6.G.Vanathi Ganga 7.G.Arathi Ganga 8.G.Sindhu Ganga .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6002/2004/E2, dated 9.4.2005, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to record the petitioner as a cultivating tenant in respect of the lands measuring to an extent of 0.87 acres comprised in S.No.121/3, Pooluvampatty Village, Coimbatore. For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Parthasarathy,SC For Respondents 1 to 3 ... Mr.N.Srinivasan, AGP For Respondents 4 to 7 ... Mr.N.Manokaran For 8th Respondent ... No Appearance ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed in the year 2005, challenging the impugned order passed by the revisional authority/first respondent.
2.Mr.S.Parathasarathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order, has briefly submitted that when the petitioner entered into an oral lease agreement with one R.Murugan, the original land owner as a cultivating tenant in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.121/3 at Pooluvampatti village, Coimbatore (South) in the year 1977, measuring to an extent of 0.87 cents agreed to pay a sum of Rs.300/- p.m as rent along with an advance amount of Rs.3,000/-. On the basis of the said oral lease agreement, the petitioner became a cultivating tenant and his name was also recorded in the revenue records and Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390 describing him as cultivating tenant. There is a well in the above said property together with 5 H.P. Electric motor, in which, the original land owner Murugan had 1/4 share, for which, the petitioner, as a cultivating tenant paid the electricity consumption charges from the date of oral lease agreement.
3.When the matter stood as above, the original land owner Murugan sold away the property to the fourth respondent A.Sundararaj and one Gopalsamy, who is the husband of the fifth respondent Shanthadevi and the father of the respondents 6 to 8. viz., Vanathi Ganga, Arathi Ganga and Sindhu Ganga. After purchasing the above said property from the original land owner Murugan, the subsequent purchasers have started to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1070 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore seeking bare injunction not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner from the said land. The said suit was decreed on the basis of the Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390, which stand in the name of the petitioner, have proved that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant. Pending the above suit, when the petitioner filed an application before the third respondent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 seeking an order to hold him as cultivating tenant, the third respondent/Tahsildar (Record Officer), Coimbatore dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the second respondent/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichy, under Section 6 of the Act in AP.No.12/2002 (CBE). The second respondent/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichy, taking into account two vital documents viz., the Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390 filed by the petitioner and the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner that he is a cultivating tenant, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of the land as cultivating tenant as provided under Section 2 (8) (i) (b) (ii) (a) (i) (ii), and thereby allowed the appeal on 17.10.2003 by setting aside the order passed by the third respondent/Tahsildar (Record Officer), Coimbatore. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichy, the fourth respondent Sundararaj and Gopalsamy have filed a revision before the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore under Section 7 of the Act. The first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore without referring to the documentary evidence namely, Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390, which were produced by the petitioner, has erroneously allowed the revision by an order dated 9.4.2005 stating that there was no written agreement of tenancy entered into between the petitioner and the original land owner and the petitioner and also for another reason that the petitioner has not proved that he had contributed his labour physically as a cultivating tenant in respect of the land in question, by exercising the power under Section 7 of the Act and also directed the petitioner to evict from the land in question.
4.It was further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that no power has been conferred on the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore under Section 7 of the Act to pass an order of eviction, and hence, he has no right to pass the order of eviction to remove the petitioner from the land in question. Therefore, the impugned order of eviction is liable to be set aside, particularly when the first respondent was given power to consider whether a person is to be treated only as cultivating tenant or not, the first respondent, by exceeding the power given under Section 7 of the Act, wrongly, re-appreciating the entire evidence, took a contrary view as against the Appellate Authority and thereby committed a grave mistake in law in passing the impugned order. He pleaded that while passing the said impugned order, the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore has failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner has contributed his own physical labour in the land in question. In view of the above said facts, it was pleaded, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5.Moreover, the learned senior counsel has submitted that even though the Village Administrative Officer has given a correct factual finding while looking into the possession of the land in question that the petitioner was a cultivating tenant for which, Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390 have been produced by him, the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore, without considering the same, wrongly set aside the order passed by the second respondent/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, by allowing the revision petition.
6.Though the petitioner has contributed his labour physically in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.121/3 at Pooluvampatti village, Coimbatore (South) and there is no such power vested with the first respondent to take physical possession of the land in question, the first respondent has allowed the revision filed by the respondents 4 to 8 ignoring the fact that the petitioner was the cultivating tenant of the land in dispute. When the first respondent has only a limited power of revision to find out any inherent error in the impugned order and he has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence, taking contrary view, committed a serious error in law in not only re-appreciating the evidence, but also conducting a local inspection in the land in dispute without notice to the petitioner and arrived at a conclusion on such local inspection. The first respondent has failed to give either notice or communication to the petitioner before conducting such a local inspection. Therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the inspection said to have been conducted by the first respondent. In any event, when the Civil Court has already passed a well reasoned judgment and decree in O.S.No.1070 of 1980 by granting injunction against the respondents 4 to 8 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land in question, the first respondent without taking into account the findings rendered by the learned III Additional District Munsif, has wrongly set aside the order passed by the second respondent/appellate authority. On the aforesaid reasons, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent/revisional authority.
7.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent taking a stand that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is neither maintainable in law nor on facts for the reason that when there was no written lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the original land owner Murugan even now, the petitioner has not proved his case before any authority including before this Court. When there was no written lease agreement to say that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant in respect of the land in question, the first respondent has correctly given his fining in the impugned order stating that there was no written agreement of tenancy entered into by the petitioner and moreover, the Tahsildar as a record officer till date had not recorded his name in the tenancy records as a cultivating tenant in respect of the land in question. Above all, when the petitioner had not proved his case that he has physically contributed his labour in cultivating the land in question along with his family members as a cultivating tenant, the impugned order passed by the first respondent does not call for any interference.
8.Heard all the parties.
9.The relevant points for consideration are (i) whether the petitioner was in physical possession of the land in question and (ii) whether he had contributed his own physical labour so as to invoke the benefit of the Act. The above said two issues were rightly considered by the first respondent/revisional authority by rendering the findings that there was no written lease agreement between the petitioner and the original land owner and that the petitioner has not produced any relevant document to show that he had physically contributed his labour to cultivate the land in dispute. One more significant fact ignored by the petitioner while challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the revisional authority is the status of the petitioner as cultivating tenant. While the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, claims to be a cultivating tenant, there is no order till date passed by the Record Officer holding him as the cultivating tenant in respect of the land in question. Therefore, in law unless and until the petitioner's name is recorded as cultivating tenant, even if he is able to show before this Court that there was an oral tenancy agreement between the petitioner and the respondent land owner, he is not legally entitled to claim the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969, therefore, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents 4 to 8 by setting aside the order passed by the second respondent/Appellate Authority/Special Deputy Collector, Trichy. In view of the above reasons, the well-reasoned and elaborate order passed by the first respondent cannot be found fault with.
10.Besides it could be seen that the writ petitioner is a Contractor by profession and he is permanently residing at Door No.5, Yercard, Tiruppur, Coimbatore District as evident from the deposition made before the third respondent, the Tahsildar (Record Officer), Coimbatore in T.R.No.30/80, therefore, the arguments advanced before this Court that he has been cultivating the land by contributing his physical labour is far from acceptance.
11.Moreover as it was also pointed out before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 that the petitioner has placed before the second respondent only the Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390 to show that he has been in possession of the land in dispute as cultivating tenant and the said documents were also said to have been issued by the Village Administrative Officer cannot advance the case of the petitioner, since there was no specific order passed by the Tahsildar (Record Officer) holding the petitioner as a cultivating tenant. Ironically, the Adangal extracts for the Fasli years 1388 to 1390 submitted by the petitioner are artificial and manufactured by the petitioner subsequent to the petition filed by the petitioner, hence, they cannot be taken into account as a piece of evidence inasmuch as the Adangal extracts for the Fasli years from 1388 to 1390 are not genuine in nature because, the name of the petitioner was not even recorded as a cultivating tenant by passing an order by the third respondent/Tahsildar (Record Officer), Coimbatore (South), therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the Adangal extracts for the Fasli years from 1388 to 1390. While dealing with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the revisional authority has got a limited or unlimited power, it must be mentioned at the very outset that in the instant case, Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 gives unlimited Powers to the revisional authority not only to examine the inherent error committed by the lower authority, but also additional power to re-appreciate the evidence, both oral and documentary. In this context, it is relevant to extract Section 7 of the Act, which reads as under:
"Revision: The District Collector (or such officer as may be specified by the Government in this behalf) may of his own motion or on the application of a party call for and examine the record of any Record Officer or Appellate Authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding under this Act and pass such orders as he may think fit:
Provided that the District Collector (or the said officer) shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Synopsis Powers of Revisional Authority: The Revisional Authority has got powers to re-appreciate the evidence and peruse oral and documentary evidence.[Pichaiammal vs. DRO Trichy, [(1997) 3 CTC 739].
Writ jurisdiction: Writ Court will not interfere with finding of facts when Statutory Authorities have approached the matter properly and after proper consideration of facts and other relevant matters. (Ayyanar VS.Mrs.Ratinam & Others,[(1996) 2 CTC 473]."
12.In the light of the above, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7, the decision in PICHAI AMMAL VS. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, TRICHY AND FOUR OTHERS (1997 (III) CTC 739) clearly holds that Section 7 of the Act enables the revisional authority to examine the records and pass such orders as he may think fit. It was also further held that the revisional authority is also conferred with suo motu power. Further, while examining the powers of revisional authority, this Court has again held that under Section 10 of the Act, even the revisional authority has the jurisdiction to entertain fresh evidence, both oral and documentary. Therefore, when it is made clear that Section 7 of the Act gives enormous power to the revisional authority, more or less a second appellate authority, the power being exercised in the present impugned order is not akin to the usual revisional powers, wherein the authority will be conferred only with the right to go into the legality or propriety of the decision arrived at in order to find out as to whether there has been a proper exercise of jurisdiction vested and whether there has been any material irregularity in the order. Therefore, it must be held that the first respondent has not committed any error either jurisdictionally or legally. When the petitioner all along has not even obtained any order from the Record Officer holding as the cultivating tenant, the impugned order passed by the first respondent exercising his power conferred under Section 7 of the Act cannot be found fault with.
13.In view of the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any slightest error in the impugned order. The order passed by the first respondent/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.18441 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.1573 of 2005 are closed.
To
1.The District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore.
2.The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichy.
3.The Tahsildar (Record Officer), Coimbatore (South).
cla