ORDER: The claim of the petitioner, as cultivating tenant, with regard to an extent of 0.24 cents, 5.02 cents and 3.08 cents in Survey Nos.56/3, 56/4 and 57/1 respectively of Vanavasi Village, Mettur Taluk, under the fourth respondent/ landlady herein, and the application for recording the petitioner’s name as cultivating tenant with regard to the said lands in the relevant revenue records, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), was originally rejected by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 25.1.1992 and confirmed by the second and third respondents, by their proceedings, dated 30.3.1993 and 26.4.1994, respectively. Hence, the above writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings RTA/1/91 (E2), dated 25.1.1992, as confirmed by the order of the second respondent in Appeal Petition No.25 of 1992, dated 30.3.1993, and confirmed by the order of the third respondent in his proceedings D.Dis.62248/93, dated 26.4.1994, quash the same and direct the first respondent to enter the name of the petitioner, as cultivating tenant in respect of Survey Nos.56/3, 56/4 and 57/1 of Vanavasi Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 2. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the impugned proceedings of the respondents on the following three grounds: (1) The first respondent had committed an error by holding a discreet enquiry in the village, which was contrary to Rule 5(4) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Rules, which reads as follows: “On the date fixed for the enquiry, the Record Officer shall hold an open enquiry in a public place in the village and in such enquiry reasonable opportunity shall be given to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. Where evidence is tendered orally, it shall be recorded in writing by the Record Officer and got signed by the deponent;” (ii) The refusal to rely upon the adangal extracts marked on behalf of the petitioner, as Ex.A1 series, holding that the same were not in conformity with the records, namely, Village Lease Register and Jamabandhi Check Memorandum is erroneous, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as per the decision in Muthukumar v. Arasan, 1986 Writ L.R. 57 (S.N.) and (iii) the failure to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, by the second and third respondents, while exercising their powers as appellate and revisional authorities respectively, without assigning reasons independently, also vitiates the impugned proceedings. 3.1.Per contra, Mr.S.Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, inviting my attention to the fact that the petitioner, who was put in possession, pursuant to an usufructuary mortgage entered into between him and the fourth respondent herein as early as 17.5.1966, which got redeemed statutorily by virtue of the provisions of the Act 40 of 1979, refused to hand over the possession to the fourth respondent and therefore, the fourth respondent herein was constrained to move O.S. No.241 of 1982 before the District Munsif’s Court, Mettur for recovery of possession and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim himself as a cultivating tenant, merely based on his possession of the impugned lands. 3.2. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further contends that even though the Record Officer is said to have held an enquiry in the village, the same was not relied upon by him, in the impugned order dated 25.1.1992, for arriving at a finding that the petitioner is not a cultivating tenant and therefore, mere reference of such discreet enquiry conducted in the village, would not vitiate the proceedings dated 25.1.1992 of the first respondent nor affect the findings arrived at therein, inasmuch as, witnesses were examined and the enquiry was held in the presence of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine and represented through his counsel and therefore, there is no violation of Rule 5(4) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Rules, as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.3. 3.3. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further contends that the rejection of the adangal extracts, marked on behalf of the petitioner, as Ex.A-1 series, after comparing the same with the original records, namely, village ‘A’ Register and Jamabandhi Check Memorandum, which are maintained by the office of the first respondent, insofar as the record of cultivating tenants right is concerned, is well within the jurisdiction. 3.4. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further contends that the reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision in Muthukumar v. Arasan, 1986 Writ L.R. 57 (S.N.) is not relevant to the instant case, inasmuch as the revisional authority had only confirmed the orders of the original as well as the appellate authorities, namely, respondents 1 and 2 dated 25.1.1992 and 30.3.1993 respectively, as the law requires the revisional authority to give reasons independently, only when he proposes to reverse the findings and decision of the original as well as the appellate authorities; and in any event, it is not permissible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings arrived at by the authorities below, as this Court is not acting as an appellate authority while exercising the powers of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 5.1. Even though I am in total agreement with the submissions of Mr.S. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as per the procedure contemplated under Rule 5(4) of the Tamil Nadu Record of Tenancy Rights Rules, referred to above, the first respondent should hold an open enquiry in a public place in the village, to give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing, and to record the evidence tendered orally in writing, I do not find any violation of the said Rule in the impugned proceedings, as the first respondent had rightly complied with the said procedure as evident in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order dated 25.1.1992, wherein it is observed that both the petitioner and the fourth respondent appeared during the enquiry through their counsel and they were permitted to examine their witnesses, whose depositions were also duly recorded. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, the observation of the first respondent, in the order dated 25.1.1992, that he had also conducted confidential enquiry in the village, would not, in any way, vitiate the proceedings, as the first respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a cultivating tenant with regard to the impugned lands, as the adangal extracts relied upon by the petitioner, marked as Ex.A-1 series, themselves were not in conformity with the village ‘A’ Register and Jamabandhi Check Memorandum insofar as the tenancy rights are concerned. 5.2. I am also unable to appreciate the contention of Mr.V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in comparing the adangal extracts with Village ‘A’ Register and Jamabandhi Check Memorandum, inasmuch as the first respondent, being the Record Officer, who is statutorily empowered to maintain the records relating to the tenancy rights, is well within the jurisdiction to compare the adangal extracts, particularly, where the dispute itself is related to tenancy right over the same land. 5.3. It is true that Nainar Sundaram, J. in Muthukumar v. Arasan, 1986 Writ L.R. 57 (S.N.), while interpreting the powers of the revisional authority under Sec.7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, held as follows: “the revisional authority, when he exercises the power of revision must examine the records-subject-matter of revision and there must be an indication that it did examine such records and if the revisional authority chooses to pronounce any order, it must have the support of reasons therefor.” In the instant case, the revisional authority, after perusal of the order of the first respondent namely, the original authority and of the second respondent, namely, the appellate authority, as well as the adangal entries relied on by the petitioner, finding no valid ground to interfere with the orders of the appellate authority, confirmed the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate and revisional authorities had not assigned independent reasons, while disposing of the appeal and the revision by their proceedings dated 30.3.1993 and 26.4.1994 respectively, also fails. 5.4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate and revisional authorities had not assigned independent reasons, while disposing of the appeal and the revision by their proceedings dated 30.3.1993 and 26.4.1994 respectively, also fails. 5.4. That apart, the revisional authority need not assign an independent reason where the orders of the original and the appellate authorities are confirmed, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Tara Chand Khatri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, (1977)1 S.C.C. 472 , State Bank of India, Bhopal v. S.S. Koshal, (1994)2 S.C.C. (Supp.) 468 and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others v. Prabhu Dayal Grover, (1995)6 S.C.C. 279 . 5.5. In any event, it may not be permissible for this Court, while exercising the powers of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, to re-appreciate the evidence, particularly, when all the statutory authorities had concurrently confirmed that the petitioner was not a cultivating tenant. Hence, finding no merits in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No.15817 of 1994 is also dismissed.