Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 417 (MAD)

Mohan and others v. Thayumanava Samy

2000-04-10

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2000
ORDER: This revision is directed against the Order of the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli in P.No.98 of 1995. The respondents in the said petition are in the revision petitioners before this Court. 2. The said petition in P.No.98 of 1995 was filed by the respondent herein under Sec.4(5) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 for restoration of possession of the suit property comprised in S.F.No.378/11 of an extent of 0.92 cents of wet land in Rajendram village. 3. According to the revision petitioners, they had filed a suit for injunction against the respondent herein in O.S.No.1206 of 1984 before the District Munsif, Tiruchy. In the said suit, the revision petitioners also filed I.A.No.1235 of 1984 for temporary injunction and an order of temporary injunction was passed. The suit was also decreed in favour of the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners took possession of the suit property, according to the respondent herein, by force and had caused damage to the crop. As against the decree and judgment of the District Munsif, Tiruchy, an appeal was filed before the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy by the respondent herein and the same was allowed. Hence the petition before the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli by the respondent herein for restoration of his possession over the suit property. The revision petitioners, as respondents before the Special Deputy Collector, filed a counter resisting the said claims. On consideration of the said contentions, the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli held that the respondent herein was entitled to be put in possession of the property and allowed the said petition. Hence, the present revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the Special Deputy Collector has not taken into account the proceedings initiated by the respondent himself before the Tahsildar and Record Officer (Tenancy Rights), Kulithalai for recognising him as a cultivating tenant of the suit properties. The Tahsildar and Record Officer (Tenancy Rights), Kulithalai, dismissed the petition filed by the respondent herein, in T.P.No.33 of 1985, by order dated 21.7.1994. The Tahsildar and Record Officer also ordered to register the names of the petitioners herein in the records of Tenancy Rights. It is further stated that an appeal has been filed before the Special Deputy Collector, Trichy in A.P.No.15 of 1994 by the respondent herein and the same is pending. The Tahsildar and Record Officer also ordered to register the names of the petitioners herein in the records of Tenancy Rights. It is further stated that an appeal has been filed before the Special Deputy Collector, Trichy in A.P.No.15 of 1994 by the respondent herein and the same is pending. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, it was not open to the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli to have ordered restoration of possession in the absence of any order in favour of the respondent herein, recognising him as a cultivating tenant. As on date, it is only the revision petitioners, who are recognised as tenants and as such the petition in P.No.98 of 1995 either should have been kept pending till the disposal of the appeal filed by the respondent therein or should have been rejected. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The entire rights for which the respondent herein would be entitled to viz., to be put in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant would arise only if the respondent had established his right as a cultivating tenant and to be in possession of the property. As far as the claim of the contesting parties to be the proper cultivating tenants is concerned, the Tahsildar and Record Officer (Tenancy Rights), Kulithalai by his order dated 21.7.1994, has rejected the claim of the respondent herein and had positively recognised the rights of the revision petitioners as tenants, whose names have to be entered into the Record of Tenancy Rights. As long as the said order has not been set aside, the respondent herein is not entitled to move the Court under Sec.4(5) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The proceeding before the Special Deputy Collector is not the proceeding in execution of any decree or order of the Civil Court. The Special Deputy Collector cannot pass any order under Sec.4(5) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 beyond the powers vested on him under the provisions of the said Act. When once the Tahsildar and Record Officer (Tenancy Rights), Kulithalai had specifically held that the respondent herein is not the proper tenant, no further order under Sec.4 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act can be passed. When once the Tahsildar and Record Officer (Tenancy Rights), Kulithalai had specifically held that the respondent herein is not the proper tenant, no further order under Sec.4 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act can be passed. Therefore, the respondent herein is entitled to take further steps as may be open to him under Sec.4(5) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act only after a decision is rendered in the appeal filed by him as against the order of the Tahsildar and Record Officer (Tenancy Rights), Kulithalai in T.P.No.33 of 1985, dated 21.7.1994. 6. In the result, the Order of the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli in P.No.98 of 1995 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The revision is allowed. No costs.