VAIDIALINGA AMBALAGANAR Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF PUDUKOTTAI, PUDUKOTTAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from this court to quash the proceedings of the first respondent herein in R.C. No. 3649/74 dated 26th August, 1974, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his PTCTR 202 dated 19th June, 1971. The circumstances under which the petition for a writ of certiorari has been filed are these: The petitioner took up on lease from Pudukottai Devasthanam 84 acres and 93 cents of lands. Apart from the said extent, the petitioner's family owns 59 acres 90 cents ancestrally. The second respondent, at the instance of the Executive Officer, Pudukottai Devasthanam, issued a notice to the petitioner on 16th December, 1968 proposing to initiate proceedings under S.7 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, Act 57 of 1961, (herein after referred to, as the Act). The petitioner submitted his objections to the said notice. In his objections, he stated that only 4 acres out of 84.93 acres taken on lease were under actual cultivation and that the rest of the lands were either used as tope or used exclusively for growing fuel trees. He had also stated that as regards the ancestral property, his sons are entitled to claim their share therein and that, therefore, the entire 59.90 acres owned by the family cannot be taken as his holding. The second respondent, however, did not accept any of the objections raised by the petitioner, but proceeded to determine the extent of the petitioner's holding as follows:

(2.) The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are three -fold : (1) The petitioner is not a cultivating tenant, as he does not contribute his own physical labour or that of any member of the family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, and, therefore, no order could be passed under S.7 as against him. (2) In respect of the lands taken on lease from the public trust the petitioner is entitled to get exemption under S.51 (v) as they are being used exclusively for growing fuel trees and if such of those lands as are exclusively used for growing fuel trees are excluded from the computation, then, there will not be any excess for S.7 to operate. (3) In any event, the order of the second respondent directing the entire lands of 24,621 standard acres to be reverted to the public trust is unsustainable as it has not taken note of the provisions in S.7 of the Act, under which it is only the excess lands over and above the cultivating tenant's ceiling area that could be ordered to be reverted. On a due consideration of the matter, I am of the view that all the above three contentions are not tenable. As regards the first contention, it is seen that the explanation to S.7 is applicable to the facts of the petitioner's case. The explanation specifically provides that even if a tenant does not contribute his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land, still, he can be taken to be a cultivating tenant, if he is in actual possession of the land, for the purpose of S.7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in this case is in actual possession of the lands taken on lease. Therefore, even if the petitioner is not contributing his own physical labour or that of the members of his family in the cultivation of the land, he has to be taken as a cultivating tenant for the purpose of S.7.