Madras High Court
Velathal vs The District Revenue Officer on 7 February, 2023
W.P.No.18972 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.02.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.18972 of 2016
1.Velathal
2.Veerathal
3.Murugathal @ Poovathal .. Petitioners
vs
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
2.The Special Deputy Collector,
Revenue Court,
Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Tahsildar cum Record Officer,
Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
4.Venkatachala Gounder
5.Palanisamy
6.Ramraj
(R6 impleaded vide order dated 10.10.2022
made in WMP No.20822/19 in WP 18972/16) .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating
to the impugned proceedings passed in Na.Ka.7759/2001/E1 dated
30.11.2015 on the file of the 1st respondent herein, quash the
same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.18972 of 2016
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Santosh
for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
Mr.N.K.Ponraj for R4
R5 – left
No appearance for R6
ORDER
The petitioners challenge an order passed by the first
respondent being District Revenue Officer. The genesis of the
dispute relates to ownership of agricultural land ad-measuring 2.75
acres in SF.No.193/1, 0.18 acres with Well in S.F.No.193/1, 2.53
acres in S.F.No.243/2 and 0.61 ½ acres in S.F.No.243/3 in Zamin
Uthukuli Village, Pollachi Taluk (lands / land in question).
2. The fourth respondent had filed an application under
Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of
Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (Act) before the Tahsildar Cum Record
Officer / R3. He sought recording of his name as cultivating tenant
in the tenancy records. The claim of R4 was based on the lease
agreements with the father of the present petitioners that had
been periodically renewed. The application of R4 was accepted and
an order passed on 14.11.1995 in his favour, including his name in
the approved list of tenancy records of Zamin Uthukulli Village.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18972 of 2016
3. A statutory appeal came to be filed by the petitioners
in terms of Section 6 of the Act before R2 being the Special Deputy
Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruchirappalli. That came to be allowed
by way of an order dated 08.12.2000 setting aside order passed by
R3 as against which R4 filed statutory appeal under Section 7 of
the Act before the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore / R1.
4. Pending revision, the petitioners had filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
seeking impleadment in the revision petition, which came to be
allowed. That order was challenged by R4 by way of writ petition in
W.P.No.19566 of 2003 that was dismissed on 24.09.2010, this
Court issuing a direction for disposal of revision petition within
three months.
5. R1 has disposed the revision petition adverse to the
interests of the petitioner and in favour of R4 restoring the order
passed by R3 originally, assailing which the present writ petition is
filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18972 of 2016
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows reference to an
order passed by the District Munsif Court, Pollachi in O.S.No.714 of
1983 that was in favour of the revision petitioner. The Officer
proceeded on the basis that pendency of R4 has been upheld
based on relevant evidence and on the fact that the lease amounts
had been duly paid to the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
7. Per contra, the petitioners do not appear to have
placed any documents or evidence in support of their contention
that R4 is not their tenant. It is also relevant to say that there is
no further appeal as against the judgment in O.S.No.714 of 1983,
which has attained finality.
8. In light of the above discussion, the factual position in
this case points unambiguously to R4 having established his
tenancy rights to the land in question. I thus see no good reason to
interfere in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner
is also not in a position to bring on record, any fact in support of
the challenge to the present impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18972 of 2016
8. For the reasons as aforesaid, this writ petition is devoid
of merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.
07.02.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes
ssm
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
2.The Special Deputy Collector,
Revenue Court,
Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Tahsildar cum Record Officer,
Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18972 of 2016
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
ssm
W.P.No.18972 of 2016
07.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
