Judgment :- Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent revisional authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act”, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “Record of Tenancy Rights Act”) holding that the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner had purchased an agricultural land of an extent of 1.77 acres in S. No. 76/4 at Ariyamangalam Village, Tiruchy Taluk and District, from one Pankajathammal and one Renganaki Ammal for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed dated 27.1.1982. The petitioner alleging that the fourth respondent had attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with respect to the said land, filed O.S. No. 159/83 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichy, and the said suit was dismissed. On appeal in A.S. No. 341/83, the learned District Judge, Trichy, set aside the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 159/83 and allowed the appeal; aggrieved by which, the fourth respondent preferred S.A. No. 454 of 1984 before this Court. This Court, by judgment dated 24.8.1984, held that the plaintiff therein, i.e., the petitioner herein was in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. Since the appellate Judge had gone into the question whether the defendant in the suit, namely, the fourth respondent herein was a cultivating tenant or not which should be decided only by the competent authorities constituted under the Tamilnadu Record of Tenancy Act, this Court further observed that the question as to whether the fourth respondent herein (the defendant in the suit) was a cultivating tenant or not, was left open to the competent authority, to decide. Accordingly, this Court, by a decree and judgment dated 24.8.1984, held that the petitioner had proved possession on the date of the suit, and that he would be entitled for injunction, as prayed for. Thereafter, in the light of the observation of this Court in a decree and judgment dated 24.8.1984 made in S.A. No. 454 of 1984, the fourth respondent had filed an application before the Record Officer, namely the third respondent herein, to enter his name as a cultivating tenant. Thereafter, in the light of the observation of this Court in a decree and judgment dated 24.8.1984 made in S.A. No. 454 of 1984, the fourth respondent had filed an application before the Record Officer, namely the third respondent herein, to enter his name as a cultivating tenant. The Record Officer found that there was no sufficient evidence to enter the name of the fourth respondent as a cultivating tenant, and dismissed the application filed by the fourth respondent, by order dated 4.10.1988, aggrieved by which, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, Special Deputy Collector, Salem, the second respondent herein, in T.R.A. Appeal No. 11/88 and the second respondent, appellate authority observed that the fourth respondent filed documents namely A1 to A4, pocket notebooks, to show that the fourth respondent was tenant under the predecessor in title and A5 to A7 were adangal extracts to show that the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant and A8 to A12 were again pocket notebooks to show that the fourth respondent was cultivating tenant under the predecessor in title. However, taking note of the fact that thereafter no entry is made against the column “cultivation by tenants or owner” in the adangal extracts, and for the reason that the predecessors in title were not examined, the appellate authority, by order dated 6.5.1991, set aside the order of the third respondent and remitted the matter. 3. Aggrieved by the order of remittance dated 6.5.1991 of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent, the revisional authority. 4. The revisional authority, by order dated 12.1.1993, which is impugned in the above writ petition, took notice of Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 and A8 to A12 and the evidence of PW2, namely, the son of the petitioner, and found that the fourth respondent is the cultivating tenant, and directed the Record Officer, third respondent, to enter the name of the fourth respondent as cultivating tenant. Hence the above writ petition. 5. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that this Court had already given a finding, by the decree and judgment dated 24.8.1984 in S.A. No. 454 of 1984, that the fourth respondent was in possession of the impugned land on the date of the suit. Inviting my attention to the definition of “cultivating tenant”, Mr. 5. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that this Court had already given a finding, by the decree and judgment dated 24.8.1984 in S.A. No. 454 of 1984, that the fourth respondent was in possession of the impugned land on the date of the suit. Inviting my attention to the definition of “cultivating tenant”, Mr. R. Gandhi contends that unless the possession as well as the contribution of the physical labour are proved by the person who claims to be a cultivating tenant, his name cannot be entered as a cultivating tenant in the records. Mr. R. Gandhi further contends that assuming that the revisional authority came to the conclusion that the grounds raised in revision are not sustainable, the revisional authority should have dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of remittance passed by the appellate authority; but ought not to have gone into the merits of the case, holding that the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant; nor should have directed the Record Officer to enter the name of the fourth respondent as cultivating tenant. In this regard, Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel, places reliance on the decision in Palanisamy Gounder v. Chellammal ( 1987 (II) MLJ 23 = 100 L.W. 336) and Ammayappan v. The Additional Collector in Charge ( 1988 (II) MLJ 293 =1988-1-L.W. 196). 6. Per contra, Mr. Alagirisamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, contends that the revisional authority, as held in District Livestock Farm Abishekapatti v. Palavesam ( 1998 (I) MLJ 259 ), could go into the merits of the case and give an ultimatum to the proceedings, while deciding on an order of remittance. It is further contended that the finding rendered by the revisional authority, holding that the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant, is based on evidence, available before the revisional authority. In any event, it is contended that this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not sit on appeal on the orders of the revisional authority; nor could go into the appreciation of evidence that weighed the revisional authority. 7. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 8. In any event, it is contended that this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not sit on appeal on the orders of the revisional authority; nor could go into the appreciation of evidence that weighed the revisional authority. 7. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 8. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Section 2, 3 and 7 of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act, which read as follows: Section 2:— “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (1) “cultivation” means the uses of land for the purpose of agriculture or horticulture; (2) “Government” means the State Government; (3) “intermediary” means any person, who not being an owner or a possesory mortgagee, has an interest in land by virtue of a tenancy agreement and is entitled by reason of such interest, to possession thereof but has transferred such possession to others; (4) “land” means a land used for purposes of agriculture or horticulture, or for purposes ancillary thereto, and includes any building or any waste, vacant or forest land appurtenant thereto and any house site belonging to the land owner and let to the tenant under the same tenancy agreement; (5) “landowner” means the owner of the land let out for cultivation by a tenant and includes the heirs, assignees or legal representatives of such owner or persons deriving rights through him; (6) “possessory mortgagee” means a mortgagee entitled to the possession of the whole or part of the mortgaged property and to receive the rents and profits accruing from such property or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest or in payment of the mortgage money; and “possessory mortgage” and ”possessory mort gagor” shall be constructed accordingly; “record officer” means any officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar, authorized by the Government by notification to exercise the powers conferred on, and to discharge the duties imposed upon, the record officer under this Act for such area as may be specified in the notification; (i) “tenant” in respect of any area in the State (other than the Kanyakumari district)- (a) means in relation to any land to which the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955), applies a cultivating tenant as defined in clause (aa) of Section 2 of that Act and includes- (i) a mattuvaramdar referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 7 of the Tiruchirapalli Kaiaeruvaram and Mattuvaram Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXVI of 1958); and (ii) a possessory mortgagor, who under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, with the possessory mortgagee contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land subject to possessory mortgage; and (b) means in relation to any land to which the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act LVII of 1961), applies a cultivating tenant as defined in clause (5) Section 2 of that Act; (ii) “tenant” in respect of any area in the Kanyakumari district- (a) in relation to any land other man the land to which the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands), Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act LVII of 1961) applies- (i) means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement express or implied; and (ii) includes- (a) any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement; (b) the heir of such person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; (c) a sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; or (d) any such sub-tenant who continues in possession of the land notwithstanding that the person who sublet the land to such sub-tenant ceases to have the right to possession of such land; (e) a possessory mortgagor who, under a tenancy agreement express or implied, with the possessory mortgagee, contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land subject to possessory mortgage; but (b) means in relation to any land to which the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act LVII of 1961) applies, a cultivating tenant as defined in clause (5) of Section 2 of that Act. (9) “village” means any local area which is designated as a village in the revenue accounts and for which the revenue accounts are separately maintained by one or more Kamams or which is now recognized by the Government or may hereafter be declared by the Government for the purposes of this Act to be a village, and shall include any hamlet or hamlets which may be attached thereto.” Section 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 of sub-division number, extent and local name, if any, of the land; (b) the name and address of the landowner; (c) the name and address of the intermediary, if any; (d) the name and address of the tenant cultivating the land; and (e) such other particulars as may be 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 and particulars furnished or recommendations made by the Advisory Committee under Section 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. An extract of the entries in the draft record relating to any survey number or sub-division 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 make 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 find 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.” Section 7: — Revision: “The District Collector or such officer as may be specified in tins behalf may of his own motion or on the application of a party call for and examine the record of any record officer or appellate authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding under this Act and pass such orders as he may think fit: Provided that the District Collector or the said officer shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 9. A Division Bench of this Court, while interpreting the powers of the revisional authority in Pichai Ammal v. The District Revenue Officer, Trichy , reported in 1998 (1) M.L.J 18, held that the revisional authority could decide the case on merits while deciding on the orders of remittance. It is thus held that Section 7 obviously provides unlimited powers on the revisional authority to pass appropriate orders as the circumstances warrant. Taking note of the avowed object of the procedural law, intending to shorten the litigation and to curtail it, the Division Bench held that, to do justice, and that too, finally, and not to keep the Sword of Damocles always hanging on the litigants and to decide even on facts and on merits, especially when factual matrix was not disputed, the revisional aumority can go into the merits in the light of the available materials, even in a matter that arises against an order of remittance. 10. However, as questioned by Mr. 10. However, as questioned by Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, to what extent the revisional authority, while exercising judicial review, can go into the merits of the case, is an issue that arises for my consideration in the instant case. In other words, whether the revisional authority can give a finding, even without any basis, particularly when this Court had already rendered a finding in S.A. No. 454 of 1984 dated 24.8.1984 that the petitioner was in possession on the date of the suit. 11. In my considered opinion, the revisional authority, even while giving a finding on merits by exercising the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 7 of the Act, such finding should be based on reasons, and therefore, I am obliged to test the impugned order of the revisional authority as to what extent it is devoid of evidence, or suffers from non-application of mind on the finding of this Court made in S.A. No. 454 of 1984 by a decree and judgment dated 24.8.1984. 12. In Palanisamy Gounder v. Chellammal ( 1987 (II) MLJ 23 =100 L.W. 336) as well as in Amayappan v. The Additional Collector in Charge ( 1988 (II) MLJ 293 =1998-1-L.W. 196), this Court held that the decisions of a Civil Court cannot be ignored while considering the rights under the Records of Tenancy Rights Act. But, the finding in S.A. No. 454 of 1984 dated 24.8.1984 is that the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has proved that he was in possession on the date of the suit. However, this Court, clearly left the matter to the competent authority to decide whether the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant or not, under the Record of Tenancy Rights Act. The observation of the Court, therefore, has to be read in the light of the definition of “cultivating tenants” referred to above. Therefore, it may not be proper to conclude that this Court had already held in S.A. No. 454 of 1984 that the fourth respondent was in possession, entitling his name to be entered in the Cultivating Tenants Act in total derogation of the powers of the competent authorities conferred under the said Act. Therefore, it may not be proper to conclude that this Court had already held in S.A. No. 454 of 1984 that the fourth respondent was in possession, entitling his name to be entered in the Cultivating Tenants Act in total derogation of the powers of the competent authorities conferred under the said Act. If the material evidences are avail able before the competent authority which enables them to consider the claim of a person, who seeks to enter his name as a cultivating tenant and the authority is obliged to weigh the evidence to give a balanced finding and to arrive at a decision by balancing the finding of this Court in SA. No. 484 of 1984 that the fourth respondent was found to be in possession on the date of the suit. Thus, the revisional authority, rightly appreciated Exs. A1 to A4 and Exs. A8 to A12 as well as the evidence of PW2 and required the petitioner to satisfy that she came to be in possession of the property in lawful manner, as the fourth respondent was found to be in continuous possession of the impugned land as per Exs. A1 to A4 and Exs. A8 to A12. That apart, even in the very records maintained under the Act, the name of one, Seshadri who was one of the sons of the fourth respondent, was found to be a tenant. It is under such facts and circumstances of the case, the revisional authority, that the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant within the definition, referred to above, and therefore, directed the Record Officer to enter the name of the fourth respondent as a cultivating tenant. Therefore, I am unable to appreciate the arguments of Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the decision of the revisional authority is devoid of evidence. As rightly argued by Mr. K. Alagirisamy, learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent, this Court, while exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot appreciate or reappreciate the evidence that weighed the revisional authority constituted under the Act. 13. In the result, the writ petition fails, and is therefore dismissed. No costs.