Judgment :- Aggrieved by the order dated 22-01-1996 in ROC No. 181947/94/P1 of the Revisional Authority (District Revenue Officer), Salem/first respondent herein, dismissing the same and confirming the order of the Tahsildar-Tenancy Record Officer, Omalur, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority and Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court) Salem, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: Respondents 4 to 6 herein own agricultural lands of an extent of 40 acres in S.No. 64/12-A and 12-B, Kamalapuram village. The petitioner had taken these lands on lease from respondents 4 to 6 and is cultivating the same as a tenant. To record himself as a cultivating tenant of these lands, he filed a petition in R.T.R.No. 10/89 under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, which was taken on file before the Tenancy Records Officer/third respondent herein. The third respondent after hearing the objections of the respondents 4 to 6, dismissed the petition. Thereafter, he filed an appeal in A.P.No.24/92 before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act (Special Deputy Collector [Revenue Court], Salem/2nd respondent herein, who also dismissed his appeal, in Revision R.O.C.No. 67253/93/P.1, before the Revisional Authority, which then vested with the Additional Collector, Salem, his petition was allowed and his status as a cultivating tenant recorded. Thereafter, respondents 4 to 6 herein filed Writ Petition No. 11198/94 before this Court. By order dated 22-9-94, this Court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Revisional authority, first respondent herein. After remand, the revision petition was re-numbered as R.O.C.No. 181947/94/P.1 and taken up for hearing before the District Revenue Officer, Salem/first respondent herein, who was now the Revisional Authority under the Act. The third respondent herein intimated the date of hearing to the contesting parties and after the date of hearing on 18-9-95, the next date of hearing was intimated as 17-11-95. Again the same was adjourned to 24-11-95. On 24-11-95, there was no sitting of the first respondent herein and the matter was again adjourned to 28-11-95. On 28-11-95, the petitioner's counsel served a petition praying for local inspection of the properties in question on the counsel for respondents 4 to 6 herein. Again the same was adjourned to 24-11-95. On 24-11-95, there was no sitting of the first respondent herein and the matter was again adjourned to 28-11-95. On 28-11-95, the petitioner's counsel served a petition praying for local inspection of the properties in question on the counsel for respondents 4 to 6 herein. On 28-11-95 there was no sitting and the matter stood adjourned to 29-12-95 and then 19-1-96 and finally on 2-2-96,for which date also there was no sitting of the first respondent. While so, on 10-2-96 his counsel received an order dated 22-01-96 purportedly made in the revision petition dismissing his revision. Though the order states that argument was heard on 24-11-95, no such argument was advanced as stated. The officer, namely, Revisional Authority did not hear the matter either on 24-11-95 or on subsequent dates till his retirement on 31-1-96. In those circumstances, having no other remedy, filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondents, though notices were served on all of them, have not chosen to file counter affidavit, conveying their stand. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. 5. Mr. T. Murugamanickam, learned counsel for the petitioner, before considering the merits of the order passed by the Revisional Authority, would contend that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was afforded opportunity to put-forth his case. He also contended that though in the revisional order it is stated that the revision petitioner was represented by counsel-Mr. K.S. Md. Mohideen and the case was finally heard on 24-11-95, in fact no one argued and the case was not heard on that date as stated in the order. According to him, in the light of the fact that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was heard in the remand order made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11198/94 dated 22-9-94, the present order of the Revisional authority cannot be sustained. Learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 except reiterating the stand taken by the Revisional authority in the order impugned, have not highlighted in their submission. If the foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable, thereafter, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the claim made by both parties. 6. If the foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable, thereafter, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the claim made by both parties. 6. In order to appreciate the above contention, before considering the claim of the petitioner, it is relevant to refer the statement made by the Revisional authority in para I (iv) which reads as under: "I (iv). The Revision Petition was taken on file by me and notice of enquiry was issued to the Revision Petitioner and the Respondents. The Revision Petitioner was represented by counsel Thiru K.S. Md. Mohideen, M.A., B.L., Advocate, Salem, and the Respondents represented by counsel Thiru T.C. Vijayaraghavan, B.Sc., B.L., Advocate, Salem. The case was finally heard on 24-11-95." Before, considering the said factual information, it is also relevant to note that in Writ Petition No. 11198 of 94 filed by the respondents 4 to 6 herein, Abdul Hadi, J., passed an order dated 22-9-94, setting aside the order dated 6-4-94 of the Revisional Authority and Additional Collector, Salem, remanded back to the Revisional Authority (first respondent herein) for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In the last paragraph of the said order, the learned Judge directed the Revisional Authority to dispose of the same after taking into consideration the entire evidence in the case within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. With the said direction, he allowed the writ petition. 7. In support of the claim that revision petitioner was not represented by counsel, namely, Thiru K.S. Mohd. Mohideen and no argument was heard on 24-11-95, Thiru K.S. Mohd. Mohideen himself has sworn to an affidavit dated 24-2-96 before this Court. In this affidavit, after setting out the factual details with reference to various dates, the said Advocate specifically states that he never addressed any argument on 24-11-95 or any subsequent hearing dates as mentioned in the order of the Revisional authority and, according to him, on all those dates the first respondent never held any enquiry. In the same affidavit, the Advocate has concluded that the statement in the impugned order that he himself and the counsel for respondents 4 to 6 herein addressed arguments before the first respondent is factually incorrect. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by Thiru k.S. Mohd. Mohideen, a practising member of the Salem Bar. 8. In the same affidavit, the Advocate has concluded that the statement in the impugned order that he himself and the counsel for respondents 4 to 6 herein addressed arguments before the first respondent is factually incorrect. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by Thiru k.S. Mohd. Mohideen, a practising member of the Salem Bar. 8. Apart from the factual information, it is relevant to refer the statutory provision dealing with exercising revisional jurisdiction. Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act speaks about revision which reads as under:- "7. Revision.- The District Collector or such officer as may be specified by the Government in this 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." The Proviso makes it clear that the revisional authority is expected to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned and no order shall be passed without prejudicial to any party without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is also relevant to note Rule 18 of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Rules, 1969 which says that in any proceedings under the Act before the Record Officer, the Appellate authority or the Revisional authority, any authorised agent may be permitted to plead on behalf of any party and the authority can cancel such permission by giving reasons. In the light of Section 7 and Rule 18, referred to above, the Revisional authority is expected to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned. Apart from the above statutory provision, in the light of the earlier order of this Court dated 22-9-94, I am of the view that it is incumbent on the part of the Revisional authority to consider all the materials, and hear the parties either in person or through authorised agent/pleader and pass an order on merits. I have already referred to the affidavit of Mr. K.S. Mohd. I have already referred to the affidavit of Mr. K.S. Mohd. Mohideen, denying the statement of fact referred to in the impugned order regarding his appearance and hearing the arguments,and the petitioner in his affidavit filed in this writ petition has also specifically denied the statement of fact made in the impugned order. 9. In the light of what is stated above, I am satisfied that the first respondent-Revisional authority though has passed a speaking order, has not heard the revision petitioner through his counsel and the respondents through their counsel and also not considered all the materials, as directed in the remand order passed by this Court. In such a circumstance, as observed earlier, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the merits of the claim made by both parties; accordingly the impugned order of the first respondent dated 22-1-96 is quashed and the matter is once again remitted to the first respondent for passing fresh order. The Revisional authority, on receipt of a copy of this order, shall issue notice to all the parties concerned, hear the matter afresh and pass orders within a period of six months. Writ Petition is allowed to this extent. No costs.