Madras High Court
P.Tamilarasi vs The District Revenue Officer Cum on 11 January, 2023
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
and
CMP(MD)No.6005 of 2022
P.Tamilarasi : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer cum
Additional District Executive Magistrate,
Madurai.
2.The Special Sub Collector,
Revenue Court,
Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar,
Melur Taluk,
Madurai District.
4.K.Mohamed Ibrahim
5.K.Mohamed Aliyar
6.K.Sahul : Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in
Ni.Mu.No.1234/2018/G3, dated 12.01.2022 reversing the order of the second
respondent in Me.Mu.13/2012, dated 03.07.2017 and the order of the third
respondent in Na.Ka.No.11916/2010, dated 03.03.2011 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.3
*****
ORDER
This revision petition is filed as against the order passed by the first
respondent / District Revenue Officer, Madurai, in Ni.Mu.No.1234/2018/G3,
dated 12.01.2022.
2.The petitioner claiming to be a cultivating tenant has filed a petition as
against the respondents 4 to 6 before the third respondent / Tahsildar to record her
as a cultivating tenant with regard to the properties in S.Nos.287/1, 321/1, 322/13,
322/14, 322/15, 322/16 and 322/9A situated in Pattur, Alampatti Village, Melur
Taluk, Madurai District, measuring to an extent of 8 acres. According to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
petitioner, the lands belong to one Kattubawa Rowther and were cultivated by the
petitioner's father-in-law, Kattaiyan. After the demise of Kattaiyan, the petitioner's
husband, Periyakaruppan, used to cultivate the lands, by giving half of the produce
to the owners and also planted coconut trees in the properties.
3.According to the petitioner, her husband, Periyakaruppan, gone abroad for
employment and thereafter, she is cultivating the lands as a cultivating tenant.
Therefore, she approached the third respondent / Tahsildar to record her as a
cultivating tenant. The third respondent, after getting a statement from the Village
Administrative Officer, has recorded this petitioner as a cultivating tenant. As
against that order, the respondents 4 to 6 have preferred an appeal before the
second respondent / Special Sub Collector, Madurai. The second respondent
dismissed the appeal and as against the same, the respondents 4 to 6 have
preferred a revision petition before the first respondent / District Revenue Officer,
Madurai. The first respondent, by order dated 12.01.2022, set aside the order
passed by the Tahsildar dated 03.03.2011 and the order passed by the Special Sub
Collector dated 03.07.2017. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has moved the
instant revision petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has
erroneously reversed the concurrent findings of the respondents 2 & 3, without
considering the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of
Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 and the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of
Tenancy Rights Rules, 1969. The third respondent / Record Officer has conducted
an enquiry, in which, the fifth respondent, namely, Mohamed Aliyar, one of the
legal heir of Kattubawa Rowther, appeared and claimed that he has been
cultivating the lands after the demise of Kattubawa Rowther. However, the third
respondent has passed an order in favour of this petitioner, based on the statement
of the Village Administrative Officer. While so, the first respondent has passed the
impugned order as if no opportunity was provided to the land owners.
5.He further submitted that the interest of the land owners has been
sufficiently represented during the enquiry before the third respondent and
therefore, the object of the beneficiary legislation cannot be defeated by taking a
hyper technical objection as if the sixth respondent was not given an opportunity
of hearing by the third respondent. The third respondent has conducted a detailed
enquiry and recorded the statements of the witnesses and also the statements of the
Village Administrative Officer, Pattur Village, the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
based upon the admissible evidence, the third respondent has passed the order
recording the petitioner as a cultivating tenant. The Village Administrative Officer
and the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, based upon their enquiry conducted with the
adjacent land owners and persons residing in the village, have clearly stated that
the petitioner's ancestors have been cultivating the subject properties and the
petitioner has also cultivated the properties by raising legumes. Therefore, he
prayed for appropriate orders.
6.This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
petitioner's Counsel and also perused the available materials.
7.This civil revision petition is filed as against the orders passed by the first
respondent / District Revenue Officer in the revision petition preferred by the
respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner was recorded as a cultivating tenant by the third
respondent / Tahsildar, which was also confirmed by the Special Sub Collector,
Madurai. However, the revisional authority has set aside the orders that no
document has been placed by the petitioner to substantiate her claim that she was a
cultivating tenant of the subject properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
8.This Court, in the decision in V.Sellappan v. District Revenue Officer,
Thanjavur and Others [1982 (1) MLJ 281], has recognized the powers of the
revisional authority as follows:-
“6. ...Section 7 of the Act enables the Revisional Authority to
examine the records and pass such orders as he may think fit. He is also
conferred with 'suo motu' powers. Under Section 10 of the Act, even the
Revisional Authority has the jurisdiction to entertain fresh evidence
both oral and documentary. Hence, in Section 7 of the Act, it has been
made more or less a second Appellate Authority. Hence, though in
Section 7 of the Act, it is characterised as a 'Revision' in every sense, it
has been made more or less a second Appellate Authority. The power
being exercised 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 or 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. Such restrictive
qualifications not being found, necessarily the power under Section 7 of
the Act has to be treated as a very wide power, which could be invoked
for rendering justice, as the Revisional Authority 'may think fit'. Hence,
it would not be correct to contend that the power of the Revisional
Authority under this Act is circumscribed, so as to preclude him from
granting such relief, as he may think fit.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
9.According to the petitioner, her father-in-law, Kattaiyan, was a cultivating
tenant of the subject properties and after his demise, her husband, Periyakaruppan,
was cultivating the lands and he had gone to abroad for employment purpose and
thereafter, the petitioner is cultivating the lands. The petitioner further claimed that
she is also paying half of the produce to the respondents 4 to 6, the legal heirs of
Kattubawa Rowther. However, the petitioner has not substantiated any of her
claim. Even for payment of produce or any payment of lease amount, the petitioner
has not placed any records.
10.The third respondent / Tahsildar, though recorded that no land tax
receipts were produced by this petitioner, proceeded to record her as a cultivating
tenant based on the statement of the Village Administrative Officer alone. The
Village Administrative Officer appears to have given a vague statement that on
verification with the adjacent owners, he came to know that this petitioner was
cultivating the land. Perusal of the order passed by the third respondent discloses
that no notice was given to the respondents 4 to 6.
11.Admittedly, the sixth respondent was in abroad during the period and the
respondents 4 & 5 are aged about 80 years old. The sixth respondent has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
preferred any appeal and the appeal before the Special Sub-Collector was
preferred only by the respondents 4 & 5. The revision petition before the District
Revenue Officer was preferred by all the legal heirs of Kattubawa Rowther. There
is no observation in the order of the Tahsildar that any opportunity was provided
to the land owners, ie., all the legal heirs of Kattubawa Rowther and that their
submissions have been considered by him. The first appellate authority / Special
Sub Collector has also observed that no documents have been placed by this
petitioner in support of her claim that she is the cultivating tenant, however, he has
observed that the petitioner is living in a corner of the subject property and that
therefore, under the impression that this petitioner may be a cultivating tenant, has
dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents 4 & 5.
12.Neither the Tahsildar nor the Special Sub Collector has recorded that
there was any inspection and there was any cultivation in the subject properties.
Most of the subject properties belong to the sixth respondent / Sahul and
admittedly, he was in abroad for the past fifteen years. The respondents 4 & 5 are
more than eighty years old and are residing away from the subject properties.
Taking advantage of the situation, the petitioner appears to have created a
document and medowar her alleged cultivating right in favour of one Alagarsamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- on 02.01.2009 and also redeemed the same on
23.10.2010, ie., even before the record of tenancy by the Tahsildar. She also went
to the extent of lodging a criminal complaint as against the land owners in Crime
No.102 of 2010 that they have abused her using her caste name. The case was
subsequently closed as mistake of facts. The land owners have filed a suit in
O.S.No.211 of 2010 before the District Munsif Court, Melur, for a permanent
injunction and the same was dismissed. However, in appeal in A.S.No.105 of
2019, the learned Subordinate Judge, Melur, reversed the same by judgment dated
24.02.2021 and decreed the suit. The same holds good till date.
13.In Re M.Chinnasamy v. Tenancy Record Officer and Another [2005 (1)
MLJ 411], this Court has held that the authority should give ample opportunity to
all the parties, not only to file their petitions seeking inclusion of their names in
the Record of Tenancy but also to hear them properly for passing orders on merits
and in accordance with law.
14.Considering the facts discussed supra; the judgment and decree passed
by the Sub Court, Melur, in A.S.No.105 of 2019, dated 24.02.2021; and the ratio
referred to supra, the revisional authority has passed the impugned order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
exercising the power under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands
Record of Tenancy Rights Act and the same, in the opinion of this Court, does not
warrant any interference.
Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
Index : Yes / No 11.01.2023
Internet : Yes
gk
To
1.The District Revenue Officer cum
Additional District Executive Magistrate,
Madurai.
2.The Special Sub Collector,
Revenue Court,
Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar,
Melur Taluk,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
CRP(MD)No.1451 of 2022
11.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
