Judgment : The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to Sa. 1.17089/93 dated 29. 1993 on the file of the District Revenue Officer, the first respondent herein confirming the order of the second respondent made in No.K.R.No. 192 of 1992, dated 2. 1993, quash the same and direct respondents 1 and 2 to issue Kudiyiruppu Patta to the petitioner in the plot having an extent of 2 cents in original S.No.3715/107 (R.S.No.23418) R.C.Street, Vilavancode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. 2. The petitioner applied to the second respondent for grant of Kudiyiruppu Patta in respect of the above mentioned property. He has filed the application in the prescribed form found at page No.5 of the typed set. He also made an application dated 16. 1992 praying for grant of Kudiyiruppu Patta in his favour. The second respondent passed the order No.K.R. 192/92, dated 2. 1993 rejecting his application dated 16. 1992 stating that on enquiry it was found the the petitioner is vending fish and is having hut at door No.7-72. It was further found during enquiry that the applicant was neither an agricultural labourer nor a rural artisan. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order dated 2. 1993 passed by the second respondent, took up the matter in appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, after hearing the parties through their learned counsel passed the impugned order dated 29. 1993 confirming the order passed by the second respondent. In the said order reference is made to the order dated 16. 1993 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8503 of 1984. 3. The first respondent, after hearing the parties through their learned counsel passed the impugned order dated 29. 1993 confirming the order passed by the second respondent. In the said order reference is made to the order dated 16. 1993 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8503 of 1984. 3. The petitioner who is aggrieved by this order has filed this writ petition on various grounds contending that respondents 1 and 2 have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them; they did not act according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1976 and Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971; that an agriculturist or agricultural labourer occupying in a Kudiyiruppu on 19th June, 1971 either as a tenant or as a licensee shall with effect from the date of commencement of Act 40 of 1971 be the owner of such Kudiyiruppu and it shall vest in him absolutely free from all encumbrances; the wife of the petitioner is making a livelihood by making Fishing nets which is a craft within the meaning of Sec.4(8)(b) of Act 38 of 1976; under the circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for the relief in the writ petition as stated above. .4. The third respondent has filed the counter-affidavit opposing and resisting the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the property in question originally belonged to one Chandran who got delivery of the property through Court in execution of a decree in O.S.No.206 of 1123 ME (Malayalam Era) on 211. 1980. The mother of the petitioner took the building in the said property on monthly rent from the said person Chandran. The third respondent purchased the said property from Chandran on 27. 1983. Subsequent to the purchase of the property, the mother of the petitioner did not-pay rent to the third respondent as agreed. Hence, he filed a suit O.S.No.426 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif’s Court, Kuzhithurai for recovery of suit building and arrears of rent. That suit was decreed on 21. 1989. The petitioner is in occupation of door No.7-72A and in respect of the said property O.S.No.334 of 1985 is pending. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of either the Act 38 or the Act 76, cannot be accepted. It is specifically denied that the petitioner is either an agriculturist or a rural artisan. The petitioner is in occupation of door No.7-72A and in respect of the said property O.S.No.334 of 1985 is pending. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of either the Act 38 or the Act 76, cannot be accepted. It is specifically denied that the petitioner is either an agriculturist or a rural artisan. He does not satisfy the definition of either agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan so as to claim benefit either under the Act 71 or the Act 76. It is further stated that the petitioner nowhere has claimed that he is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan. In the absence of any such claim, the petitioner is not entitled to the patta and as such, the authorities have rightly rejected his request. It is also submitted that the in- come of the petitioner was not only Rs. 150 per month, in fact, he is a tailor earning Rs.250 per day from 1992. He was in Saudi Arabia in the years 1990 and 1991 and was earning a lot by tailoring. Thus, the third respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed counter-affidavit. Sri.G.Sankaran, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 argued in support and justification of the impugned order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the points raised in the affidavit. .7. Sri Paul Vasanthakumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent took me through the translated copies of the impugned orders and pointed out to the applications made by the petitioner himself as found in the typed set filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition. He submitted that unless the petitioner claimed and established that he was an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer or a rural artisan, he was not entitled for grant of Kudiyiruppu patta either under Act 38 of 1976 or Act 40 of 1971. He submitted that unless the petitioner claimed and established that he was an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer or a rural artisan, he was not entitled for grant of Kudiyiruppu patta either under Act 38 of 1976 or Act 40 of 1971. He submitted that for the first time in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner has claimed that he is an agriculturist and also a rural artisan and that his wife is engaged in making fishing nets; the second respondent, on enquiry found that the applicant is vending fish and he is having his own hut at door No.7/72 and he has further found that the applicant is neither an agricultural labourer nor a rural artisan; the 1st respondent, after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties has passed a well considered order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner; thus, in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by respondents 1 and 2 and in the absence of pleading by the petitioner before the authorities that he was either agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan, the impugned orders deserve to be sustained Learned counsel, in support of his submission relied on the decision of this Court in C.Justus v. The Authorised Officer, 1992 Writ.L.R. 816 and also on the order dated 16. 1993 passed in W.P.No.8503 of 1984. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. In the application dated 16. 1992 filed by the petitioner, he has nowhere stated that he is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan. On the other hand, he has stated that himself and his family members are doing their community work and that he is not a tailor. He has stated that the total income of his family is less than Rs.2,000 per year. If the petitioner was really an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan, nothing prevented him from stating so in the application, making a claim for grant of Kudiyiruppu Patta. The essential requirement for entitlement is that a person should be either an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or a rural artisan under the Act. If the petitioner was really an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan, nothing prevented him from stating so in the application, making a claim for grant of Kudiyiruppu Patta. The essential requirement for entitlement is that a person should be either an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or a rural artisan under the Act. When the petitioner was making claim for the very grant of Kudiyiruppu patta in the ordinary course, it could not be expected that he would omit to mention the essential fact having clearly stated in his application that the income of his family is less than Rs.2,000 and that he is not a tailor. 9. In page 5 of the typed set filed by the petitioner there is an application made by the petitioner in the prescribed form. Even this application form does not indicate that the petitioner is either an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer or a rural artisan. There is column No.8 in the said application form meant for remarks. At least as against the said column, the petitioner could have stated that he is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan. In the appeal memorandum filed by the petitioner found at page No.9 of the typed set also he has not stated that he is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan. He has also not stated that his wife was engaged in making fishing nets so as to come within the definition of ‘Rural artisan. ‘Apart from that whether making a fishing net can be called as a craft at all is a different issue. 10. Having regard to what is stated above, on facts, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has grown wiser when he filed this writ petition to state for the first time that he is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer. Not only that, in the writ petition, he has claimed both as agriculturist and agricultural labourer and rural artisan. He has also tried to improve his claim by stating that his wife is engaged in making fishing nets which according to him is a craft. Be that as it may. All this, the petitioner did not whisper before the authorities at any time. It is only for the first time, he has made such a statement in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition which cannot be accepted. Be that as it may. All this, the petitioner did not whisper before the authorities at any time. It is only for the first time, he has made such a statement in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition which cannot be accepted. The second respondent, on enquiry found that the petitioner as a matter of fact is owning hut at door No.7-72. It is relevant to state here in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that in respect of door No.7-72, a suit O.S.No.334 of 1985 is pending against the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner has already suffered a decree for eviction in the suit O.S.No.426 of 1985. Kudiyiruppu Patta is in respect of house No.7-74A. The second respondent, on enquiry, has found that the petitioner is neither an agricultural labourer nor rural artisan. Thus, he rejected the petition of the petitioner. 11. The first respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner rejected the appeal by the impugned order dated 29. 1993 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties noticing that the second respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the grounds (1) the petitioner is neither an agricultural labourer nor a rural artisan and he is selling fish, and (2) he is owning a hut at door No.7-72. The first respondent has also stated in the impugned order that in the appeal memo, the petitioner has stated that he is a poor cooly belonging to fisherman community and he earns Rs. 150 P.M.; He has nowhere stated that he is an agricultural labourer or an agriculturist or a rural artisan; He has not stated so in the application submitted before the second respondent; hence, according to his own application and the appeal memorandum, the petitioner was not entitled to get Kudiyiruppu Patta under Act 38 of 1976 and Act 40 of 1971. It is further stated in the impugned order that as per the records of the Special Sub Collector passed in proceedings K.R. 192/92 Tahsildar, Vilavancode, made in O.Mu.No.A3/l5096/92, dated 2. 1993, the petitioner is selling fish and thereby earns cooly. The first respondent also relied on the order of this Court dated 16. 1993 in W.P.No.9503 of 1984 and rejected the appeal. In my view, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is a well considered order. 1993, the petitioner is selling fish and thereby earns cooly. The first respondent also relied on the order of this Court dated 16. 1993 in W.P.No.9503 of 1984 and rejected the appeal. In my view, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is a well considered order. The basic requirement for grant of Kudiyiruppu Patta is that a person should be an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or a rural artisan and the petitioner has not claimed so in the very application made for grant of such Patta and further having not stated about the same before the authorities till he filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition. Having regard to this incurable deficiency on the part of the petitioner, the grounds urged in the writ petition that proper enquiry was not held by the second respondent and the enquiry was held behind his back may not be of any consequence, in view of the factual position stated above. As per the decision of this Court in the case of Justus v. The Authorised Officer, 1992 Writ. L.R. 816, it is necessary to claim and establish that a person is either an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or rural artisan to get benefit of Kudiyiruppu Patta under the Acts mentioned above. In the light of the order made in W.P.No.8503 of 1984 when both the respondents 1 and 2 have found on facts that the petitioner is not an agriculturist or agricultural labourer or a rural artisan, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.