Judgment :- A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Swamikkannu,J., in W.P.No. 6032/81 dated 3.5.1988, dismissing the W.P. filed by the appellant Devasthanam holding that modification of approved Record was not possible under S.5(2) of Act 10 of 1969 (T.N.Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act) that such modification of the record was possible only in certain specified cases, such as a) modification of entry in such record either by reason of death of any person, b)by reason of the transfer of interest of the death of any person, c)by reason of the transfer of interest by reason of any other subsequent change. The learned Judge also held that there is no provision in the Act to delete the names already recorded in the approved Record of Tenancy Rights. It is also held that since the appellant who ought to have preferred their objections under S.3(7) before the Record of Tenancy was approved have failed to do so and since there is no provision to delete the names of any tenants from the approved Record of Tenancy Rights, the application in Form-7 was not maintainable. 2. The short facts which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: 3. The appellant is the owner of the land measuring 1.34 acres in R.S.No.333 at Vanian Karambai, Patteeswarm, Thanjavur District. The appellant filed a petition in Form V in 250/74 before the 3rd respondent herein praying for the exclusion of the above said land from the final records prepared and published for the village mentioning the said land as under the tenancy cultivation of the 4th respondent. The appellants contention is that the said land is not under the cultivation of the 4th respondent as a tenant as he is only the lessee of the usufructs of the coconut trees. The appellant filed Exhibit P.l, Auction Notice, Exhibit P-2, Auction Register and also Exhibit P-5, the Lease Deed, Account books of the temple were also filed. Besides, two witnesses were also examined on their side. According to the appellant, both the documents and the oral evidence establish beyond doubt that the lease was in respect of the usufructs of the coconut trees and not in respect of the land. Besides, two witnesses were also examined on their side. According to the appellant, both the documents and the oral evidence establish beyond doubt that the lease was in respect of the usufructs of the coconut trees and not in respect of the land. The 4th respondent examined the witnesses on his side to prove that he has been cultivating the land also and that therefore the lease was in respect of the land only. The 3rd respondent came to a conclusion in favour of the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent further held that the Temple Authorities did not object to dry crop cultivation all these years which amounts to permission and held that the appellant is estopped from questioning the same. The 3rd respondent eventually dismissed the petition. 4. The appellant filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent who dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred as the Act) to delete the name already recorded in the approved Record of Tenancy Right. 5. The appellant filed Revision Petition R.P.No.32/79 against the above said order be fore the 1st respondent herein. The appellant contended, inter alia, that the 2nd respondent erred in stating that the Application is not maintainable and that the appellant ought to have preferred his objections before the Record of Tenancy Right was approved. It is further con tended that the 2nd respondent failed to see that there is a provision for deletion of name in the Act, and that the 2nd respondent failed to see that the land comprised in the Survey Number in question is a thope comprising of cocoanut trees, that such thope has been excluded from the purview of the Act. It is submitted that the 1st respondent has erred in casting the burden on the appellant to prove that the lease deed, Exhibit P-5 is a genuine document, whereas the burden is on the 4th respondent to prove that he did not execute the document. The 1st respondent also erred in relying upon a portion of the oral evidence to hold that exemption pro vided for in S.51 of the Public Trust Act does not apply to this case. The 1st respondent also erred in relying upon a portion of the oral evidence to hold that exemption pro vided for in S.51 of the Public Trust Act does not apply to this case. The 1st respondent also erred in observing that as there was no objection against the inclusion of the name of the 4th respondent in the draft Record of Tenancy Right, modification of entry is not possible. For those and other reasons, the appellant filed the writ petition to quash the said order. 6. The appellant submitted that the order of the 1st respondent in R.P.32 of 79 dated 20-7-80, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in A.P.No. 25/78 dated 18-11-78, which in turn confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent in Form V-251/74 dated 31-3-78, is illegal, improper, unjust and vitiated for the following grounds: i. The 1st respondent failed to see that under S.4-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 the petition for deletion of name entered already in the Records is maintainable and the 1st respondent erred in thinking that only modification of the entries under certain circumstances alone is possible. The 1st respondent also erred in not, considering the application of S.4-A of the Act to the facts of this case. ii)The 1st respondent erred in considering Exhibit P-5 alone ignoring the auction notice, temple accounts and other vital documents filed by the petitioner to prove that the lease was in respect of usufructs of the cocoanut trees and not in respect of the land. iii)The 1st respondent has erred in throwing the burden on the appellant to prove the genuineness of Exhibit P-5 whereas the 4th respondent, having admitted his signature, ought to have proved that he signed on a blank paper. iv)The 1st respondent erred in holding that exemption provided for in S.51 of the Public Trust Act does not apply to this case. v)The lst respondent failed to see that the failure to object to the entry of the 4th respondents name in the records after publication in the Gazette would be a bar for filing a petition for deletion of the name of the 4th respondent. vi)The 1st respondent failed to see that the 2nd respondent did not consider the case on merits and dismissed the appeal on a technical ground. vi)The 1st respondent failed to see that the 2nd respondent did not consider the case on merits and dismissed the appeal on a technical ground. vii)The 2nd respondent erred in thinking that there is no provision to delete the name already recorded in the approved Record of Tenancy Right. 7. The appellant therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction and call for the records of the 1st respondent in R.P.32/79 dated 20.7.80 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in A.P.No.25/78 dated 18.11.78 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in Form V-251/74 dated 31-3-78 and quash the order therein and direct respondent 3 to delete the name of the 4th respondent from the Record of Tenancy right pertaining to 1.34 acres in R.S.333 at Vanian Karambai village, Patteeswaram, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District. 8. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit and according to him, what was leased out was the land and not the usufruct of the cocoanut trees as is sought to be projected by the appellant. In the auction, no rules were read out. He has been cultivating plantain, poosani and other vegetables for many years and the appellant never objected to this. He has been raising these crops ever since Fasli 1380. 9. It is his further case that he has examined witnesses before the third respondent herein to show that he has been cultivating the lands for a number of years, that the Karnam of the village had gone into the box and deposed that he has been cultivating the lands in question for very long. He has also exhibited the manure card issued to him for the supply to show that he has been cultivating. On such strong evidence the third respondent has come to a factual conclusion that the land had been leased out and the temple had never objected to the cultivation for all these years as such, the temple is estopped. According to the 4th respondent, this finding cannot be categorised as perverse. 10. On such strong evidence the third respondent has come to a factual conclusion that the land had been leased out and the temple had never objected to the cultivation for all these years as such, the temple is estopped. According to the 4th respondent, this finding cannot be categorised as perverse. 10. Apart from the above, it is contended that his name had been included and recorded after a due enquiry conducted as per the pro visions of the Act and if any person is aggrieved against an entry or inclusion of name an appeal is provided under the Act and the appellant did not file an appeal, the inclusion has become final. 11. It is also contended that the present application for modification is not maintainable as S.5(2) of the Act contemplates a modification in the following cases only. (a) in the case of death (b) transfer of interest (c) any other subsequent changes 12. The Writ Petition came up before Swamikkannu,J., for final disposal. The learned Judge on a consideration of the entire materials placed before him, came to the following conclusion: “It is said that the District Revenue Officer, in his order dated 20.7.1980, has discussed all the relevant aspects exhibits by the oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners case is that the 4th respondent was given right to pluck the cocoanuts in the thope, and that the fourth respondent has no right or interest in the land. The petitioner, in support, relief on the lease deed, Ex.P5, which is signed by the 4th respondent. There is no information as to who wrote the document. The date of the document is not available in the document. No witness has attested the document, which is also an unregistered one. The case of the fourth respondent is that his signature was obtained in a blank paper on some false grounds and the agreement was created. In other words, according to him, it is a concocted document and it could not be relied on. It is seen that the karnam and other witnesses have deposed that the fourth respondent had raised punja crops on the land in question and the petitioner herein could not deny this fact. In other words, according to him, it is a concocted document and it could not be relied on. It is seen that the karnam and other witnesses have deposed that the fourth respondent had raised punja crops on the land in question and the petitioner herein could not deny this fact. On a scrutiny of the evidence, oral, and documentary, adduced in the case, it is seen that the first respondent was correct in having held that the land in question was dry land and as such, the exemption prayed for in S.51 of the Public Trusts Act would not apply to this case. The name of the fourth respondent was included in the draft record of tenancy rights after an enquiry as per S.3(4) of the Record of Tenancy Act, on the I.R. Form III Application filed by the fourth respondent before the Record Officer. The draft record was prepared and published in the District Gazette and in the village etc., to enable persons aggrieved to file their appeals or objections as provided for in S.(6) of the Act. The petitioner has not launched any proceeding or filed any objection against the inclusion of the 4th respondent in the Record and as such, the draft records having been approved, modification of the approved record was not possible as per S.5 of the Act which allows modification of the record only in certain specified cases within whose purview the petitioner’s case does not come. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity attaching to the order of the first respondent impugned, herein. There being, therefore, no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.” 13. Aggrieved by the order passed in the A.P., the Devasthanam has filed this Writ Appeal by raising the following grounds: a) The order of the learned Judge is against law, b) The learned Judge erred in thinking that modification of the approved record was not possible under S.5 of the Act. c) The learned Judge failed to see that S.4A and S.5 enables any interested party to file the claims for modification of the approved record. c) The learned Judge failed to see that S.4A and S.5 enables any interested party to file the claims for modification of the approved record. d) It is also contended that the publication in the Gazette daring the stage of preparation of draft record would not be sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and for proof of individual notices to the person concerned or persons likely to be affected is necessary. In support of this contention, Ms.Padmaja relied on the judgment of N.V. Bala-subramanian,J., reported in N.Chockayya Pillai, Trustee of Pudukkkadai Chatram, Karuvadi, Nannilam Taluk v. R.Subramania Pillai (1996 TLNJ 400) which in turn followed the unreported decision of Alagiriswami,J.’, in W.P.No.l 142/66 dated 7.4.1969 and 1971 (II) MLJ 218 of V.V. Raghayan, J., (e) It is further submitted that the lease was in respect of the usufructs alone and not in respect of the land. 14. We have heard the arguments of counsel appearing on either side 15. Our attention has been invited to the decision (unreported) rendered by Justice A.Alagiriswami (as he then was) in W.P.No.l 142 of 1966 dated 7.4.1969, which had been followed by V.V.Raghavan,J., in the decision reported in Abdul Kareem v. Special Officer, Wakfs (1971 (2) MLJ 218 = 84 L.W.753). Both the said decisions arose under the Wakf Act, 1954. The passages relied only the learned counsel for the appellant in both the cases run thus: a) Writ Petition No. 1142 of 1966: Ala-giriswami,J., “The petitioner claims that Tippu Sultan granted to an ancestor of his certain lands as personal inam. The Inam Commission has also issued a title deed in favour of his ancestor. The Wakf Board has made the following publication under S.5 of the Wakf Act, 1854:— “Fort St. George Gazette. Madras, Wednesday, June 3, 1959 (Jyaistha 13,1881) 1) Name of the Wakf: Mosque Khazi Syed Amin Personal Khai-rathi Inam Navakkadu. 2) Name of the village : Kunnathur, Komaragoundenpalay, Navakadu, Pulankulam. 3) Nature and object of the Wakf : Pious, religion charitable and wakf by user. To celebrate Mohurrum etc. 4)Gross income of the properties comprised in the Wakf: Rs. 2,300/- 5)The amounts of land revenue cesses, rates and taxes leviable in respect of properties: Rs. 17-50. 6)The expenses incurred realisation of the income and other remuneration of the Muthawalli of the Wakf. Rs. To celebrate Mohurrum etc. 4)Gross income of the properties comprised in the Wakf: Rs. 2,300/- 5)The amounts of land revenue cesses, rates and taxes leviable in respect of properties: Rs. 17-50. 6)The expenses incurred realisation of the income and other remuneration of the Muthawalli of the Wakf. Rs. 180/- It will be noticed that the name of the Muthawalli is not mentioned therein. The description of the Wakf Properties is not given and no notice was given at any time to the petitioner mentioning specifically the lands which were declared to be Wakf properties. It is said that a number of notices were given to the petitioner but it is admitted that in none of these notices was mention made of the lands which had been declared to be Wakf properties. The Proforma sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Wakfs has been placed before me. That no doubt contains the properties which the petitioner now claims as personal inam granted to his ancestor. But it is admitted that no copy of the pro-forma report was granted to the petitioner or sent along with any of the notices sent to him. Naturally, therefore, he could not have known what were the properties which had been declared as Wakf properties and unless he knew what were the properties which had been declared as Wakf properties he could not be expected to file a suit under S.6. All that the publication in the Gazettee shows is that there is a Wakf in Kunnathur, Komaragoun-denpalayam, Navakadu and Pulankulam. That means that any Muslim owning any property in any one of the four villages, assuming that he knew of the publication of this notification in the Gazette, would be in danger of his properties being held to be Wakf property merely as a result of this notification. That is too dangerous a claim to accept. No men can be condemned and no person could be deprived of his rights unheard unless notice had been given to him showing what was proposed to be done with regard to properties in possession. That clearly has not been done in this case; and, therefore, it is not open to the Wakf Board to take further steps against the petitioner, or, anybodyelse in respect of the lands which the petitioner claims. That clearly has not been done in this case; and, therefore, it is not open to the Wakf Board to take further steps against the petitioner, or, anybodyelse in respect of the lands which the petitioner claims. The only remedy open to the Wakf Board is to make a fresh publication mentioning these very properties and preferably giving notice to the petitioner or other persons interested. The publication in the Gazette is hardly a proper substitute for notice to the person affected. Not everybody is expected to look into the Gazette every day at the risk of his losing his property rights. Publication in the Gazette must be accompanied by notice to the persons affected. Otherwise there will be absence of the minimum requirements of natural justice before a person is deprived of his property rights. The notification published in the Gazette itself need not be quashed because it is quite harmless, and does not affect any particular property. It does not refer to any particular property and as I pointed out above it cannot affect the properties claimed by the petitioner. It is open to the Board to take proper steps to publish a proper notification. Doubtless when a proper notification mentioning these properties is made, it will still be open to the petitioner to question the claim in a civil court and establish that the properties are not Wakf properties. There will be no order as to costs.” b)1971 (II) M.L.J. 218= 84L.W. 753 (V.V. Raghavan, J. In that case plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the publication dated 6.5.1959 in the Gazette in respect of the suit property declaring that it is a Wakf property is illegal, ultra vires, and void and for setting aside the same. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property is not the Wakf property, but Private property belonging to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. Defendants further case is that no enquiry was made in determining the character of the suit property and that enquiry if any was if at all done behind his back and that the publication is ultra vires of the Wakf Act XXIX of 1954 and he was only informed on 6-10-1960 of the publication in the Gazettee of the suit property as Wakf Property. The Special Officer of the Wakf filed a written statement contending that the suit property is a Wakf property dedicated to the support of the burial ground, that the Asst. Commissioner of Wakfs after due enquiry furnished the report under S.4(3) of the Wakf Act to the Government, that the publication in the Gazettee was made in consequence thereof. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the prescribed procedure has been followed in declaring the property as Wakf Property. On appeal, by plaintiff the Sub-court confirmed the decision of the Trial Court on all points and dismissed the appeal. The Second Appeal is by the plaintiff to this Court. This Court in para 5 and 7 held as follows: “o.The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the publication in the Gazette was made without making the requisite enquiry and without notice to him. There is considerable force in the contention, of the learned counsel. The Learned Subordinate Judge, in paragraph-7 observed that no witnesses were examined by the Assistant Commissioner of the Wakf Board. It is further seen that the particulars entered in the publication in the Gazette are vague in as-much as under column No. 1 the name of Wakf alone is given as Pudupalayam Burial Ground Wakf, without specifying its exact location. Under the head ‘Name of the village’the entry is Manjakuppam; and in column No.3 it is shown’ pious, religious and charitable or the support of the burial ground. Except that the place of the Wakf is given as South Arcot District, there is no other indication to identify the property. There is an annexure to the notification and Entry No.II of the annexure shows that no notice was served on the muthawalli. The actual Entry No.II in the annexure runs: “The muthawalli is absent at Pon-dicherry and his address is not known”. It is therefore clear that no attempt was made to serve the muthawalli. I am therefore satisfied that the complaint of the appellant that he has not been served with notice of the enquiry prior to the making of the report has been made out.” 7. In a similar situation Alagiriswami,J., in W.P.No.1142 of 1966 held ( Syed Hussain v. The State Wakf Board, by Secretary (not reported): “The publication in the Gazette is hardly a proper substitute for notice to the person affected. In a similar situation Alagiriswami,J., in W.P.No.1142 of 1966 held ( Syed Hussain v. The State Wakf Board, by Secretary (not reported): “The publication in the Gazette is hardly a proper substitute for notice to the person affected. Not everybody is expected to look into the gazette every day at the risk of his losing his property rights. Publication in the gazette must be accompanied by notice to the persons affected. Otherwise there will be absence of the minimum requirements of natural justice before a person is deprived of his property rights”. The said judgment was confirmed in appeal. Following the above decision, I allow the appeal and set aside the decrees of the Courts below. It is open to the first defendant to take proper steps after issue of the requisite notice to the muthawalli and making an enquiry to notify the same as a wakf if in his opinion it is found to be wakf property. The Madras Wakf Board is impleaded as the first respondent in the second appeal. It is unfortunate that no one has represented the Wakf Board. There will be n o order as to costs. No leave.” 16. N.V.Balasubramanian,J., after considering the aforesaid decisions, has applied the principles contained therein to a case which arose under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act 1969 and the said decision is reported in N. Chockayya Pillai, Trustee of Pudukkadai Chatram, Kuruvadi, Nannilam Taluk, Thanjavur District v. R.Subramania Pilli (1996 TLNJ 400). It is held therein thus: “It is necessary to consider the scope and object of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act which was enacted to provide for the preparation and maintenance of the record of tenancy rights in respect of certain agricultural lands in the State of Tamil Nadu. The object of the Act is to provide a permanent record of tenancy rights so that there could not be any dispute over the rights of tenancy in respect of the tenancy of agricultural lands. A close study of the various provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder illustrates that this Act is a model piece of inelegant legislation. The Act, as already seen, provides for the preparation and maintenance of record of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural lands and the provisions of the Act shall have overriding effect over any other law, custom, usage or contract. The Act, as already seen, provides for the preparation and maintenance of record of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural lands and the provisions of the Act shall have overriding effect over any other law, custom, usage or contract. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is also barred in respect of matters over which the Record Officer is empowered we under this Act to determine on enquiry and an entry in an approved record of tenancy rights shall be presumed to be true and correct, until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. Once an entry is made in the record of tenancy rights for the agricultural land, the tenant in whose favour an entry is made gains an advantage and can claim the statutory benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The Act no doubt provides elaborate procedure for rectification of the entries during the stage of preparation of draft record of tenancy rights, without the knowledge or notice to the land owner, there is no provision for rectification of such entry, by the original authority except by way of appeal or revision. But, the appellate remedy or revisional remedy provided under the Act may not be an effective or available remedy where the person concerned was not served with notice or he had no requisite knowledge of the proceedings before the Record Officer at the time of preparation of the draft record. Similarly, it may also happen that the name of a person who is not real tenant might have been included, suppressing the name of the real tenant and if a persons name is included in the approved record of tenancy rights when he is not a tenant at all without the knowledge of the real tenant, the Act does not provide a statutory remedy to the real tenant to approach the original authority for the correction of the approved record of tenancy rights. In short, there is no provision in the Act or Rules for the correction of entries in the approved record of tenancy rights by the original authority where an entry is made without the knowledge or without service of the statutory notice on the landlord or the real tenant. In short, there is no provision in the Act or Rules for the correction of entries in the approved record of tenancy rights by the original authority where an entry is made without the knowledge or without service of the statutory notice on the landlord or the real tenant. Though the Act provides for, as already seen, an appellate remedy, it may not in all cases be an effective or available remedy due to various circumstances beyond the control of the landlord, like the expiry of time limit to prefer an appeal or where due to lack of knowledge of the entry or where the landlord resides somewhere else or in some other country etc., S.5 of the Act no doubt, provides for the modification of the entries, but the remedy provided under S.5 of the Act would be available only in certain cases mentioned therein, and it does not provide for the correction of entries in the approved record of tenancy rights in all other cases or where an entry is made without knowledge of the landlord and the real tenant. Hence, when an entry is made in an approved register without the knowledge or notice of the landlord or the tenant, it must be taken that the entry made is a nullity, and has no legal effect and cannot operate against the landlord or the real tenant. The question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the first respondent is that during the preparation of the draft register, notice of draft entry was made in the District Gazette inviting objections from the landlords for the proposed inclusion of the name of the tenant and hence, it must be taken that the petitioner or his predecessor in office were aware of the proceedings. I do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent. The appellate authority found that there is no evidence to show that the previous trustee was served with the individual notice. The appellate authority held that neither the copy of the notice nor the relevant register was produced before the authority to show that the previous trustee was served with the individual notice. The question left is what is the effect of the publication in the District Gazette during the stage of preparation of draft record of tenancy rights. The appellate authority held that neither the copy of the notice nor the relevant register was produced before the authority to show that the previous trustee was served with the individual notice. The question left is what is the effect of the publication in the District Gazette during the stage of preparation of draft record of tenancy rights. The question whether the publication in the District Gazette would amount to sufficient notice came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.1142 of 1966 which arose under the Wakfs Act, and wherein Alagiriswami,J. has held as under:— The publication in the Gazette is hardly a proper substitute for notice to the person affected. Not everybody is expected to look into the gazette every day at the risk of his losing his property rights. Publication in the gazette must be accompanied by notice to the persons affected. Otherwise, there will be absence of the minimum requirements of natural justice before a person is deprived of his property rights”. The above judgment was followed in Abdul Kareem v. Special Officer, Wakfs (1971(2) M.L.J. 218=84 L.W.753) wherein the learned Judge also held that the said judgment of Alagiriswami,J., was confirmed in appeal. Following the above decisions, I also hold that the publication in the District Gazette during the stage of preparation of draft record would not be sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Unless there is a proof of individual notice to the person concerned or persons is likely to be affected by an entry made in the approved record, and the mere publication in the gazette would not be sufficient to attribute knowledge of the draft proceedings either to the land owner or the real tenant, The questions till remains as to the source of the power to correct the entry made in the approved record of tenancy rights in the situation mentioned above. I am of the view that the power to correct an entry made without the knowledge or notice to the landlord or the tenant, in the absence of any specific provision in the Act or Rules, should be traceable to the powers of the Officer to make the entry under S3 of the Act. The power to make an entry under S.3 should also include the power to cancel the same or the power to rectify the same. The power to make an entry under S.3 should also include the power to cancel the same or the power to rectify the same. Hence, the source of such a power can only be traceable to S.3 of the Act.” 17. In order to find out whether the decisions arising under the Wakf Act 1954 can be applied to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of both the enactments. 18. Wakf Act: The Wakf Act was enacted by Parliament in 1954 to provide for the better administration and Supervision of Wakfs. Sec. 4: Preliminary survey of Wakfs: (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for the State a Survey Commissioner of Wakfs and as many as additional or assistant Survey Commissioner of Wakfs as may be necessary for the purpose of making a survey of wakf properties existing in the State at the date of the commencement of this Act. (2) All additional and assistant Survey Commissioners of Wakfs shall perform their functions under this Act under the general supervision and control of the Survey Commissioner of Wakfs. (3) The Survey Commissioner shall, after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, submit his report in respect of wakfs existing at the date of the commencement of this Act in the State or any part thereof, to the State Government containing the following particulars, namely:— (a) the number of wakfs in the State, or as the case may be, any part thereof showing the Shia Wakfs and Sunni Wakfs separately; (b) the nature and objects of each wakf; (c) the gross income of the property comprised in each eakf; (d) the amount of land revenue, cesses, rates and taxes payable in respect of such property; (e) the expenses incurred in the realisation of the income and they pay or other remuneration of the mutawalli or each wakf, and (f) such other particulars relating to each wakf as may be prescribed. (4) The Survey Commissioner shall, while making any enquiry, have the same powers as are veted in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the following mattes, namely:— (a) summoning and examining any witness; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) requisitioning any public record from any court or office; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of any witness or accounts; (e) making any local inspection or local investigation; (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (5) If, during any such inquiry, any dispute arise as to whether a particular wakf is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf and there are clear indication in the deed of wakf as to its nature, the dispute shall be decided on the basis of such deed. (6) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct the Survey Commissioner to make a second or subsequent survey of wakf properties in the State and the provisions of sub-section (2)(3)(4) and (5) shall apply to such survey as they apply to a survey directed under Sub-Section (1): Provided that no such second or subsequent survey shall be made until the expiry of a period of twenty years from the date on which the report in relation to the immediately previous survey was submitted under sub-S. (3). S. 5. Publication of list of Wakfs:— (1) On receipt of a report under sub-S. (3) of S. 4, the State Government shall forward a copy of the same to the Board. (2) The Board shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) and publish, in the Official Gazette, a list of wakfs in the State, or as the case may be, the part of the State, whether in existence at the commencement of this Act or coming into existence thereafter to which the report relates, and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. 19. Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (Act X of 1969): The object of this Act is to provide for the preparation and maintenance of Record of Tenancy rights in respect of Agricultural Lands in the State of Tamil Nadu. It received the assent of the President on 10-7-1969 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 17.7.1969. It extends to the whole of State of Tamilnadu. S. 3 reads as follows: 3. It received the assent of the President on 10-7-1969 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 17.7.1969. It extends to the whole of State of Tamilnadu. S. 3 reads as follows: 3. Preparation of Record of Tenancy Rights: (1) The Government may, by notification , direct the preparation of a record of tenancy rights for such village or villages as may be specified in the notification and such record shall be prepared, maintained and revised in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (2) The record referred to in sub-section (1) shall contain the following particulars, namely:— (a) the survey number or sub-division number, extent and local name, if any, of the land; (b) the name and address of the land owner; (c) the name and address of intermediary, if any; (d) the name and address of the tenant cultivating the land; and (e) such other particulars as maybe prescribed. (3)(a) As soon as may be, after the publication of a notification under sub-section (1), the record officer shall publish a notice in the village informing the public that a record of tenancy rights is to be prepared for that village, and that the landowner, tenant, or intermediary of every land which has been let for cultivation shall intimate in writing to him of his interest in such land. (b) The notice shall contain such further particulars, and shall be published in such manner, as may be prescribed. (4) On the basis of the intimation given under clause (a) of sub-section (3) or on the basis of information obtained by the record officer under S. 9 (or on the basis of information and particulars furnished or recommendation made by the Advisory Committee under S. 5-A) or in such other manner as may be prescribed, the record officer shall after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing, prepare a draft record of tenancy rights for the village. (5) As soon as may be after the completion of the preparation of the draft record of tenancy rights for a village, such draft record shall be published in the District Gazette of the District in which the village is situated and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (5) As soon as may be after the completion of the preparation of the draft record of tenancy rights for a village, such draft record shall be published in the District Gazette of the District in which the village is situated and in such other manner as may be prescribed. An extract of the entries in the draft record relating to any survey number or subdivision number of the land shall also be served on the landowner, intermediary, if any, and the tenant concerned. (6) Any person aggrieved by such draft record either on the ground that the entry in respect of particulars relating to him is incorrect or on the ground that his name or other particulars relating to the land which has been let for cultivation and in which he has interest either as landowner, intermediary or tenant have been omitted to be included in such draft record, may, within such period as may be prescribed made an application to the record officer for the rectification of such entry or for the inclusion of such name or particulars in the draft record of tenancy rights. (7) An application under Sub-Section (6) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim. (8)(a) before passing an order on an application under sub-section (6) the record officer shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing . If the record officer decides that any rectification or inclusion should be made, he shall pass an order accordingly. (b) If the record officer decides that there is no case for effecting the rectification or inclusion in the draft record of tenancy rights, he shall reject the application. (c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reasons for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed. (9) After the disposal of all the applications under sub-section (6) in respect of any village, the record officer shall make necessary alterations in the draft record of tenancy rights in accordance with the orders passed under sub-section (8) and shall prepare the final record of tenancy rights for the village. (9) After the disposal of all the applications under sub-section (6) in respect of any village, the record officer shall make necessary alterations in the draft record of tenancy rights in accordance with the orders passed under sub-section (8) and shall prepare the final record of tenancy rights for the village. (10) As soon as may be, after the completion of the preparation of the final record of tenancy rights for a village such final record shall be published in the Fort St. George Gazette and the record so published shall be called the approved record of tenancy rights. The approved record of tenancy rights shall also be published in the District Gazette of the district in which the village is situated and in such other manner as may be prescribed.” S. 4 deals with inclusion of lands in the approved Record of Tenancy Rights. S. 4A deals with the power of Record Officer to take suo motu action. S. 5 provides for modification of entries in the approved record of Tenancy Rights. It runs thus: 5. Modification of entries in the approved record of tenancy rights: (1) Where any person claims that in respect of any land already included in the approved record of tenancy rights any modification is required in respect of the entries in such record either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of the transfer of interest or by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make an application to the record officer for the modification of the relevant entries in the approved record of tenancy rights. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim. (3)(a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-section (1) the record officer shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing . (3)(a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-section (1) the record officer shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing . If the record officer decides that any modification should be made in respect of the entries in the approved record of tenancy rights he shall pass an order accordingly and shall effect the modification and make such incidental and consequential changes in the approved record of tenancy rights, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order. (b) If the record officer decides that mere is no case for effecting any modification the entries in the approved record of tenancy rights he shall reject the application. (c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reasons for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed.” 20. On a comparative analysis, it is evident that unlike the Wakf Act, enough safeguards are provided in S. 3 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act. After publication of notification by Government directing the preparation of Record of Tenancy Rights Act, the Record Officer has to publish a notice in the concerned village informing the public that Record of Tenancy is to be prepared for that village and that the land owner, tenant or intermediary of every land which has been let for cultivation shall intimate in writing to the Record Officer of his interest in such land. Thereafter, the Record Officer is obliged to give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned, to make their representation either rally or in writing before preparing a draft Record of Tenancy Rights in the village. After the completion of preparation of the draft Record of Tenancy Rights in the village, the same is published in the District Gazette and an extract of the entries in the draft record has to be served on the land owner, intermediary and the tenant concerned. Persons aggrieved by the draft record are given an opportunity to apply to the record officer under S. 3(6) for rectification of such entry or for inclusion of such names or particulars on the draft Record of Tenancy Rights. Persons aggrieved by the draft record are given an opportunity to apply to the record officer under S. 3(6) for rectification of such entry or for inclusion of such names or particulars on the draft Record of Tenancy Rights. Before passing any order on an application made under sub-section (6) of S. 3, the Record Officer has to give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representation either orally or in writing. It is thereafter, the Record Officer prepares the Final Record of Tenancy Rights for the village. 21. In addition to the detailed provisions contained in the Act, affording sufficient opportunity to the landowner, intermediary or tenant cultivating the land, the Rules framed under the Act, known as ‘Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Rules, 1969’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), also prescribe a detailed procedure. Rule 4 of the Rules provides as to in what manner the public notice under S. 3(3)(a) of the Act should be published, it prescribes the Form of Notice as Form No. II and further provides that such notice shall be affixed in the village chavadi or other public place in the village; on the notice board of the village or town panchayat; on the notice board of the office of the Record Officer; and also by beat of tom tom and by publication in important local dailies for two days alternatively. A copy of the notice is also required to be furnished to the Members of the Committee. The Landowners, intermediaries, tenants and other persons having interest in the land are entitled to send intimation to the Record Officer in Form No. III regarding the interests held by them within one month from the date of publication of the notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules. It is also open to the Record Officer to accept such intimation received even after the expiry of one month, if sufficient cause is shown. Rule 5 provides that the Record Officer after expiry of the period mentioned in Form No. II, shall cause necessary verification to be made with reference to the village records and by such local enquiries as may be considered necessary after getting the required information and after due verification the Record Officer is required to fix a date for enquiry and has to give notice of the same to the villagers. Such notice shall have to be published by affixture in the village chavadi, other public place in the village; by affixture on the notice board of the village or town pancayat; by affixture on the notice board of the office of the Record Officer and also by beat of tom tom in the village. On holding such enquiry, as may be considered necessary on the date fixed for enquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned, the Record officer has to record in writing if any evidence is tendered and obtain the signature of the deponent. The draft record of tenancy rights prepared under sub-section (4) of S. 3 of the Act apart from publishing in the District Gazette, it shall have to be published by affixture in the village chavadi or other public place in the village; by affixure in the notice board of the village or town panchayat and by affixture on the notice board of the office of the Record Officer. Rule 7 of the Rules further provides for filing of application for rectification or inclusion in draft record under S. 3 (6). On considering such applications, after giving due opportunity to the applicants and the persons having any interest in the land mentioned in the application and recording the evidence, if any, adduced by the parties, the Record Officer has to prepare the approved Record of Tenancy Right and publish the same by affixture in the village chavadi or other public place in the village; by affixture on the notice board of the village or town panchayat; by affixture on the notice board of the office of the Record Officer. Rules 10, 10-A, 11 and 11-A provide for the making of the application and the procedure to be followed for the purpose of S. 4, 4-A and 5 of the Act. It is, thus, clear that not only the Act consists of elaborate procedure, but the Rules also prescribe detailed procedure and mode of publication. The mode of publication is so elaborate that every person interested in the land is bound to come to know of the proceedings relating to preparation of Record of Tenancy Rights. Such an elaborate procedure is not found in the Wakf Act. The mode of publication is so elaborate that every person interested in the land is bound to come to know of the proceedings relating to preparation of Record of Tenancy Rights. Such an elaborate procedure is not found in the Wakf Act. When the statute provides an elaborate procedure to safeguard the rights of the persons having interest in the land and affords an opportunity to put forth their claims, it will not be permissible to read something else into it and introduce the principle of natural justice. The very procedure and the mode of publication prescribed themselves are in quite conformity with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is no question of issuance of individual notices when the preparation of individual Records of Tenancy Rights throughout the State has to be undertaken and when all the interested parties in the land have been given an opportunity to put forth their cases at the time of preparing the Draft Record of Tenancy Right and even after the publication of the approved Record of Tenancy Rights. 21. (a) Significantly, these procedural safeguards which are found in the Record of Tenancy Rights Act are not found in S. 4 of the Wakf Act. It is therefore, in W.P. No. 1142/1966 A. Alagiriswami, J., and in 1971 (2) M.L.J. 218=84 L.W. 753 V.V. Raghavan, J., had, in our opinion, rightly taken the view that opportunity of hearing should be given before a property is held to be a Wakf Property under S. 4. The view of A. Alagiriswami, J., was also confirmed in Appeal as could be seen from the judgment of V.V. Raghavan, J. But, with respect, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by N.V. Balasubramanin, J., in the decision reported in N. Chockayya Pillai, Trustee of Pudukkadai Chatram, Karuvadi, Nannilam Tuluk v. R. Subramania Pillai (1996 TLNJ 400) cited supra. The learned Jude has applied the principles laid down under the Wakf Act while construing the provision of S. 3 of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Record of Tenancy Rights Act. As already noticed, S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act is a self contained code containing enough procedural safeguards both at the stage of preparation of draft and final Record of Tenancy Rights for the village. 22. As already noticed, S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act is a self contained code containing enough procedural safeguards both at the stage of preparation of draft and final Record of Tenancy Rights for the village. 22. Unlike the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, the provisions of Wakf Act do not contemplate issue of notice to the parties and therefore, this Court had taken the view that the principles of natural justice should be let into the provisions of S. 4 of the Wakf Act. In contra distinction, the provisions of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act had contemplated the issue of notice to the parties from the stage of finalisation of draft notification. In other words, the provision of S. 3 & 4 expressly embraces within itself the basic principles of natural justice. We accordingly overrule the decision in “ N. Chockayya Pillai, Trustee Of Pudukkadai Chatram, Karuvadi, Nannilam Taluk v. R. Subramania Pillai (1996 TNLJ 400). = 1997 (1) MLJ. 26 . 23. Under S. 5 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, modification of the entries already included in the approved record can be sought for only under the following contingencies: a) by reason of death of any person b) by reason of the transfer of interest c) by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances. Any application under sub-section (1) shall contain such particulars as may by prescribed and shall be accompanied by documents if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim. The Record Officer shall give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned, to make their representations either orally or in writing. If the Record Officer decides that any modification should be made in respect of the entries in the approved record of tenancy rights, he shall pass an order and shall effect modification and make such incidental and consequential changes in the approved record of Tenancy Rights. If the Record Officer decides otherwise, he shall reject the application. It is to be noticed that any order under clause (a) and (b) of sub-section 3 of S. 5 shall contain reasons and shall be communicated to the parties concerned. None of these contingencies has been spelt out by the appellant in their application for deletion under S. 5, of the Act. It is to be noticed that any order under clause (a) and (b) of sub-section 3 of S. 5 shall contain reasons and shall be communicated to the parties concerned. None of these contingencies has been spelt out by the appellant in their application for deletion under S. 5, of the Act. Consequently, in our view, the appellant cannot invoke the application on the grounds set out by them in the application for deletion. 24. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew our attention to certain provisions of Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation & Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act (LVII OF 1961). It is unnecessary for us to refer to the said provisions, because the said enactment deals with regulation and ministration of agricultural lands by Public Trusts and the relation of Public Trusts and their cultivating tenants in the State of Tamil Nadu. 25. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the case that the lease was in respect of the usufructs and not of the land, has no merits. The Original Authority (Addl. Record officer/Addl. Tahsildar, Kumbakonam), the Appellate Authority (RDO., Kumbakonam) and the Revisional Authority and the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, on a careful scrutiny of the records and of the evidence tendered by the Temple management and of the tenants, held that names of the tenant has been rightly included in the approved Tenancy Records of Tenancy Rights and the modification of Final Record of Tenancy Rights is not possible under the circumstances. All the authorities have declined to interfere with the orders passed including the name of the tenant in the Final Record of Tenancy Rights and rightly so in our opinion. There is ample evidence adduced on the part of the tenant that he has been cultivating the lands for many years and the Devasthanam has never objected to the same. The Karnam of the village had gone into the box and deposed that the tenant has been cultivating the lands in question for very long. The tenant has also exhibited the Manure Card in support of his claim. We are not inclined to interfere with such a factual conclusion arrived at by all the three authorities. The findings of the authorities concerned are based on facts and cannot be categorised as perverse as alleged by the counsel for the appellant. 26. The tenant has also exhibited the Manure Card in support of his claim. We are not inclined to interfere with such a factual conclusion arrived at by all the three authorities. The findings of the authorities concerned are based on facts and cannot be categorised as perverse as alleged by the counsel for the appellant. 26. Learned single Judge of this Court his accepted the findings of the authorities and dismissed the writ petition for the reasons recorded in his order. We are in entire agreement with the factual findings recorded and the ultimate conclusion reached by the learned single Judge and consequently, we dismiss the Writ Appeal. However, there will be no order as to costs.