ORDER: Invoking Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in T.R.No.14 of 1992, dated 21.10.1992 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter affidavit has been filed the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 argued the matter and pleaded that there is no merit in the writ petition and that therefore the same has to be dismissed. There is no appearance for the 3rd respondent. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit together with all the other relevant material documents available on record in the form of type set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows: This writ petition has been filed to quash the orders of the 2nd respondent in T.R.No.14 of 1992 dated 21.10.1992 in recording the 3rd respondent as tenant without any notice. One Tmt.Chamun-deeswari Ammal had executed a usufructory mortgage in favour of Govindarajulu Padayachi for a value of Rs.6,500 on 14.6.1962. On that day itself the 3rd respondent was put in possession of the property. The 3rd respondent is the usufructory mortgagee in respect of the property situate at Survey Nos.1756 and 1757 of an extent of 6 acres and 6 cents. On 15.7.1968, Tmt.Chamundeeswari Ammal had alienated the property in petitioner’s favour for a valuable consideration of Rs.39,000. On that day itself the 3rd respondent was put in possession of the property. The 3rd respondent is the usufructory mortgagee in respect of the property situate at Survey Nos.1756 and 1757 of an extent of 6 acres and 6 cents. On 15.7.1968, Tmt.Chamundeeswari Ammal had alienated the property in petitioner’s favour for a valuable consideration of Rs.39,000. Thereafter he filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage in O.S.No.319 of 1974 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore and also filed an application for passing of final decree in I.A.No.816 of 1986. The Principal Sub Judge had rejected the application and he filed a civil revision petition before the High Court and the same is pending adjudication in C.R.P.No.352 of 1988. Notice has also been served on the respondent in the C.R.P. Suppressing all these facts the 3rd respondent has filed an application before the 2nd respondent to record him as a tenant under the petitioner and the same was allowed on 21.10.1992. He has not received a notice from the 2nd respondent before he passed orders. According to him, under the provisions of Act 10 of 1969, it is the duty of the record officer to conduct an enquiry after issue of due notice to the parties and only after hearing the objections he can record the name of the tenant in respect of a particular land. Before passing an order under an application under Sec.6 the record officer shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned who shall make their representation either orally or in writing. Under Sec.4(3)(a) in respect of matters arising subsequent to the publication of the Act, the same procedure shall be followed. The record officer shall communicate the order containing reasons for inclusion or non-inclusion of the name of such persons and the same shall be put to knowledge of interested persons. It is contended by him that when there is no existence of landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent cannot act contrary to the well laid procedures as contained in Rules 4 and 5 of G.O.Ms.No.3022 and dated 17.12.1969. An enquiry is contemplated under Rule 5 and procedure is also prescribed under Rule 8 in matters concerning enquiry under Sec.3(8). An enquiry is contemplated under Rule 5 and procedure is also prescribed under Rule 8 in matters concerning enquiry under Sec.3(8). On receipt of the application under Sub-sec.(6) of Sec.3 the record officer shall fix a date for hearing and give notice thereof to the applicant and all the other persons interested thereof in the lands. No such procedure had been followed in the present case especially on the facts alleged. The record officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. According to the petitioner he came to know the order of the 2nd respondent only from the Village Administrative Officer when he went there to pay the kist for the present fasli and when he was informed of the aforesaid fact, he immediately issued a notice on 1.3.1993 seeking for the rejection of the application filed before the authority. He has also enclosed along with his letter of objection the documents like: (1) the property document copy dated 14.12.1968; (2) patta transfer copy; (3) receipt for payment of kist; (4) receipt of the deposit made pursuant to the order of the Court; and (5) judgment in I.A.No.806 of 1986 in O.S.No.319 of 1974. He contends that he has not received any communication from the 2nd respondent so far. He appears to exercise jurisdiction in matters over which the statute does not have any applicability. He had transgressed all powers while recording the 3rd respondent as tenant even without notice to the petitioner. The relationship between the mortgagor and mortgagee between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent will not create any jural relationship between the landlord and tenant and it is well settled principle that ‘once a mortgage is always a mortgage’. There is no question of any deemed tenancy: see the judgment of Supreme Court in Parameswaran Govindan v. Krishna Bhaskaran, (1993)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 572: A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1135. The 3rd respondent is not a cultivating tenant as defined under Sec.2(8)(1) of the Act and Sec.2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act nor he is a landlord as defined under Sec.2 of the Act. Only in the event of the 3rd respondent being a cultivating tenant, the statute confers a right on the facts indicated above. The 3rd respondent is not a cultivating tenant and the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction. Only in the event of the 3rd respondent being a cultivating tenant, the statute confers a right on the facts indicated above. The 3rd respondent is not a cultivating tenant and the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction. Any jurisdiction exercised by the 2nd respondent is itself bad and illegal and is hit by the doctrine of ultra vires. The defect of jurisdiction is so patent and the order passed in T.R.No.14 of 1992 and dated 21.10.1992 is liable to be quashed. He has also lodged a compliant to the Collector as to the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent as a superior revenue authority and one conferred with over all powers he has declined to exercise his powers resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. The District Collector has powers under Sec.7 to direct the Record Officer to follow his directions. The power can be exercised suo motu on revision. Despite having brought to the notice of the superior authority about the illegal order of the 2nd respondent the same is allowed to stay directing the petitioner to resort to other remedies. The Collector has been oblivious to the rights of the petitioner and this has compelled the petitioner to move this Court seeking issue of writ of certiorari. 6.It is contended by the petitioner herein that unless the 2nd respondent has a legal authority, he cannot issue orders and any orders passed by him is contrary to the statute bereft of legal authority and is a nullity. It is also his grievance that when the tribunal has acted contrary to the principles of natural justice adjudicating him as a landlord without hearing him exhibits not only irregularity in procedure but vice in administration. He has no other alternative or efficacious remedy than to move this Court. 7. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of this case and from the claim and counter claims made by the parties, the following are the admitted facts in this case. One Tmt.Chamun-deeswari Ammal had executed a usufructary mortgage in favour of the present third respondent on 14.6.1962 and he has also put in possession on that day itself. That was with regard to the property in Survey Nos.1756 and 1757 of an extent of 6 acres and 6 cents. Thereafter, the petitioner herein purchased the said property for a valuable consideration. That was with regard to the property in Survey Nos.1756 and 1757 of an extent of 6 acres and 6 cents. Thereafter, the petitioner herein purchased the said property for a valuable consideration. Thereafter he tried to redeem the mortgage and filed civil suits and ultimately the matter is pending in this Court in C.R.P.No.352 of 1988. In the meanwhile the 3rd respondent herein filed an application before the 2nd respondent to record him as a tenant under the petitioner and the same was allowed on 21.10.1992. There is no notice from the 2nd respondent before he passed orders. It is contended by the petitioner herein that he came to know the order of the 2nd respondent only from the Village Administrative Officer when he went to pay the kist for the present fasli and immediately thereafter he issued a notice on 1.3.1993 seeking for the rejection of the application filed before the authority. He has not received any communication from the 2nd respondent so far. 8. That being so, about the order of the 2nd respondent he lodged a complaint to the Collector and according to him, the District Collector has powers under Sec.7 to direct the Record Officer to follow his directions. The power can be exercised suo motu on revision. But it is the grievance of the petitioner herein that despite having brought to the notice of the superior authority about the illegal order of the 2nd respondent, the same is allowed to stay directing the petitioner to resort to other remedies. Hence, he has come forward with the writ petition. 9. In the above circumstances of this case, it is significant to note that the present third respondent whose name has been entered as cultivating tenant in the order impugned herein, has got a mortgage even from the vendor of the petitioner herein and that is in the year 1962 and from the said time has been in possession of the same. The petitioner claims that he has purchased the said property in the year 1968. Even in the patta the third respondent’s name had been there till 4.5.1987 and only by virtue of an order dated 4.5.1987 the name in the patta was ordered to be changed. The petitioner claims that he has purchased the said property in the year 1968. Even in the patta the third respondent’s name had been there till 4.5.1987 and only by virtue of an order dated 4.5.1987 the name in the patta was ordered to be changed. Thus it is very clear that until 1987 the patta also stood in the name of the 3rd respondent herein even though he claims that he has purchased the property even in the year 1968. That part he filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage in O.S.No.319 of 1974. Thus even in this, there is a delay of about 6 years from the date of purchase of the property. In the same proceedings he filed an application for passing of final decree and that was dismissed by the Sub Court and on that he filed a civil revision petition in this Court in C.R.P.No.352 of 1988 and according to him the same is still pending before this Court. Thus as on date the said mortgage also still exists. In such circumstances alone the 3rd respondent herein filed an application before the Tahsildar concerned to record his name as a cultivating tenant and accordingly his name was entered. Aggrieved by this he filed objection petitions and also approached the District Collector. The District Collector also given some directions to the petitioner herein. 10. In this writ petition, the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent Tahsildar in recording the name of the 3rd respondent herein as cultivating tenant of the property in question. Further he has been the mortgagee of the said property even from the time of the petitioner’s vendor. This fact is not denied by the petitioner herein. Further the petitioner is unable to redeem the said mortgage till date and the matter is pending before this Court in C.R.P. That apart for a long time even after the purchase by the petitioner herein the patta of the property itself stood in the name of the 3rd respondent therein. Then coming to the impugned order it is claimed by the petitioner herein that the same was passed on 21.10.1992. But the same came to his knowledge only after several months and then only he filed application to reject the claim of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter he approached the District Collector. He has given certain directions. Then coming to the impugned order it is claimed by the petitioner herein that the same was passed on 21.10.1992. But the same came to his knowledge only after several months and then only he filed application to reject the claim of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter he approached the District Collector. He has given certain directions. But he has not followed the said direction given by the District Collector the higher revenue authority. All these above facts clearly show that the possession of the property is in his favour. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that he is in possession of the property in question or he is cultivating the same or somebody else is cultivating the same under his instructions. 11. Apart from all these the Collector has given clear instructions to the petitioner herein to make an appeal before a particular Revenue Officer in a proper form. But that has not been done by the petitioner herein and without exhausting that remedy he has rushed to this Court. In the said order passed by the District Collector he has specifically instructed the revenue officials concerned to go into the claims of the petitioner herein and pass an order and also to send a report of the same to him. That being so, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not gone for such a remedy as directed by the District Collector and rushed to this Court. Therefore in such circumstances of the case, I do not see any merit whatsoever in the present writ petition. 12. Therefore for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of this case, I am of the clear view that the petitioner herein has failed to make out any case in his favour and that therefore there is no need for any interference with the order impugned in this writ petition. Thus the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently W.M.P.No.9969 of 1993 also is dismissed.