DURAISAMY MOOPPAN Vs. RAMASAMY REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.BANUMATHI,J. This Writ Appeal arises out of order dated 20.9.2001 of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20562 of 1994 quashing the order of revisional authority- 4th Respondent and holding that the Appellant is not proved to be the tenant of Survey No.6/1 - 0.33 cents in Pachaiperumal Patty village. The Appellant, who was the 1st Respondent in the Writ Petition, has come forward with this Appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts, which led to the filing of Writ Petition, are that the 1st Respondent is the owner of agricultural land in Survey No.6/1 0.33 cents in Pachaiperumal Patty village. THE Appellant, who was cultivating the land in S.No.9/5 66 cents of the same village filed application before the 2nd Respondent -Record Officer and Special Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk for registering him as a tenant under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Right Act, 1969 to register him as a tenant in respect of Survey No.6./1 0.33 Cents. In T.A.No.6 of 1994 filed by the Appellant, 2nd Respondent Record Officer has held that the Appellant was a tenant in respect of Survey No.9/5 Ac.0.66 cents and that the land in Survey No.6/1 is located adjacent to the said property and Survey No.9/5 is irrigated from the well and pump set from the subject land i.e., Survey No.6/1 ordered by an order dated 28.8.1992 recording the Appellant as the tenant. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd Respondent Record Officer, the 1st Respondent preferred an appeal before the 3rd Respondent - Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Lalgudi. Upon perusal of kist receipt dated 4.6.1988 and U.D.R.patta produced by 1st Respondent, Respondent No.3 Special Deputy Collector has set aside the orders of the Record Officer and allowed Appeal. THE order of Appellate Authority was challenged by the Appellant before the 4th Respondent -Revisional Authority. By an order dated 12.11.1994, in T.R.No.6/92, 4th Respondent Revisional Authority has held that sufficient opportunity was given to the 1st Respondent by the Record Officer and 1st Respondent has not utilised the opportunity to substantiate his defence and he is estopped from denying right of the Appellant as a tenant over the disputed lands, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority Special Deputy Collector and allowed the revision petition. THE order of Revisional authority was challenged before the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20562 of 1994.

(3.) IN the application in T.R.No.6 of 1994 filed before the Record Officer, the Appellant claimed that he is the cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.0.33 cents of land in S.No.6/1 of Pachaiperumal Patty village. The said application was resisted by the 1st Respondent by filing counter statement. As pointed out by learned single Judge, no documentary evidence was produced before the 2nd Respondent Record Officer to show that the Appellant is the cultivating tenant. The Appellant has neither produced any documentary evidence such as adangal extract or the register showing payment of rent to the 1st Respondent land owner nor examined the persons like Village Administrative Officer, who is conversant with the land in question to substantiate his claim. As pointed out by the learned single Judge, purely, based on the oral evidence of the Appellant, the Record Officer has recorded the finding that the Appellant is the cultivating tenant.