Judgment :- 1. The proceedings impugned in these writ petitions arise under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (10 of 1969) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners are land owners. The concerned respondents wanted themselves to be recognised as cultivating tenants and recorded as tenants under the Act. One significant feature which cannot be lost sight of is that the lands were the subject matter of dispute in O.S. 1 of 1963, on the file of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram and in that suit a Receiver was appointed in respect of the lands and through the Receiver the concerned respondents claimed such rights of tenancy. It is the case of the petitioners that the Receiver was discharged on 29-7-1974. It is true that the concerned respondents would say they were such tenants even earlier. When the Receiver was appointed they did not appear to have maintained the position that they were entitled to be in possession as such tenants having derived tenancy rights even earlier and on the other hand they were content to derive the rights of tenancy only through the Receiver. In view of this position, I find they cannot claim rights as cultivating tenants, since the pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court in Arumugha Gounder v. Arthanari Mudaliar 1, lays down the proposition that a tenant under the Receiver could not get the character of a cultivating tenant. This aspect has been omitted to be taken note of by all the authorities under the Act, when they rendered decisions against the petitioners which are being challenged in these writ petitions. This is the point which Mr. Sivasubramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioners, urges amongst other points. Since I have sustained this point there is no need to go into the other points. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs.