ARULMIGU THIRUKUMARESHWARAN THIRUKOIL, PONNANNUR, THIRUMAYAMTALUK, PUDUKKOTTAI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE CHINNATHAMBI Vs. THIRUMAYAM TALUK KUDIVARA RIGHTS REGISTRATION OFFICER CUM TAHSILDAR THIRUMAYAM, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above five writ petitions are filed for issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent dated 15.11.1994 and quash the same.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as trustee of the petitioner's temple for three years. He took possession of the temple and its properties. When his possession was sought to be obstructed by the Executive Officer, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5829 of 1994 and obtained interim orders of stay. That order of interim stay was also communicated to the Executive Officer on 22.4.1994 . The 2nd respondents in all the five writ petitions preferred applications before the Tahsildar constituted under the Records of Tenancy Rights Act. The petitioners therein (the second respondents herein) have not impleaded the trustee (petitioner herein) as one of the parties, but they have impleaded only the Executive Officer as the respondent. Subsequently, an order has been passed by the Tahsildar, i.e The Kudivara Rights Registration Officer recording the second respondents herein as cultivating tenants under the Act. These writ petitions have been filed by the Trustee challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar in all these matters.

(3.) A counter has been filed by the first respondent, wherein it is stated as follow: It is submitted that enquiry has been posted on different dates. Though the writ petitions entered their appearance, they have not produced any evidence or documents in support of their claim. During the last date of hearing i.e. on 31.10.1994, the petitioner and their Advocate have not appeared for enquiry. Therefore ,from the counter it is seen that the writ petitioner was a party to the proceedings in the impugned order. Whether he was impleaded by the second respondents herein or he got himself impleaded does not matter. The fact remains that he was a party before the first respondent. Therefore, it is not as if, the order was passed without notice to the writ petitioner herein. Hence the argument that the principles of natural justice has been violated has no basis. Therefore the writ petitions are not maintainable.