Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2544 (MAD)

Annalakshmi v. District Revenue Officer & Others

2010-06-28

B.RAJENDRAN, R.BANUMATHI

body2010
Judgment : Per Ms. R. BANUMATHI,J. This Writ Appeal arises out of order of the learned single Judge in, W.P.No.7030 of 1993 dated 28. 2000 allowing the writ petition filed by the tenant quashing the order of District Revenue Officer, Trichy in Nee.Mu.No. R.T.R.2/92 dated 9. 1992 and remitting the matter back to Record Officer/ Tenancy Tahsildar for consideration of the matter afresh. 2. Brief facts are that mother of Ganesan filed Petition under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Act, 1969 before the 3rd respondent in T.R. No. 11/82 (AB) in respect of the lands comprised in S.No.413 (b) of Adavathur (E) Revenue village, measuring 3.00 acres out of 6.46 acres of wet land (eastern side). The said Ganesan pleaded that he has been cultivating the land for more than 22 years. The Civil Court has also upheld the claim that he is the cultivating tenant of the said land. He has further averred that since his name has not been registered as a cultivating tenant, he has filed the application to register himself as the cultivating tenant. 3. The mother of appellant/land owner contested the petition contending that the land in S.No.413 (b) of Adavathur (E) revenue village was never leased out either to the said Ganesan or to anyone else at any point of time and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by doing personal cultivation and that the said Ganesan was only an agricultural labourer as a “Neer Cooli”, whose work is to irrigate the lands of the appellant from the irrigation channel. 4. Gnanambal-mother of the appellant died while the matter is pending before the Record Officer and the appellant was impleaded as legal representative of the land owner- Gnanambal. 5. Before the Record Officer – 3rd respondent, Ganesan examined herself as P.W.1 and one Chinnasamy Muthuiriyar was examined as P.W.2. The land owner has examined R.W.1-Periannan and R.W.2-Rajamanickam. By the proceedings dated 29. 1987 in T.R. 11/82 (AB), the Record Officer-3rd respondent declined to register the name of the 4th respondent in the Register of Tenancy rights and dismissed the petition. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the said Ganesan preferred an Appeal Petition No.3/82 before the 2nd respondent –Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Court, Salem. By the proceedings dated 12. 1987 in T.R. 11/82 (AB), the Record Officer-3rd respondent declined to register the name of the 4th respondent in the Register of Tenancy rights and dismissed the petition. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the said Ganesan preferred an Appeal Petition No.3/82 before the 2nd respondent –Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Court, Salem. By the proceedings dated 12. 1991 made in Nee.Mu.3/88/Trichy the 2nd respondent set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent and remitted the entire matter to the 3rd respondent-Record Officer for consideration of the matter afresh. As against the same, the tenant-4th respondent preferred a revision before the 1st respondent-District Revenue Officer. By the proceedings dated 9. 1992, the 1st respondent set aside the proceedings of the 2nd respondent and restored the proceedings of the Record Officer and thereby confirming the order of dismissal in T.R.No.11/82 (AB). Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 9. 1982 in Nee.Mu.No.R.T.R.2/92 dated 9. 1992 the 4th respondent herein viz., the tenant filed writ petition. 7. Pointing out the contention of the 4th respondent that he has been cultivating the land for more than 22 years and that he claims to be the cultivating tenant, the learned single Judge set aside the order of District Revenue Officer-1st respondent and remitted the matter back to the third respondent-Record Officer for consideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law. The learned single Judge also observed that by so remitting the matter to the 3rd respondent, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties as they would have opportunity to put forth their case. 8. Challenging the order of learned single Judge, Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that under Section 6 of Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (in short, Act 10 of 1969), the Appellate Authority is called upon to adjudicate and not to refrain from the same by remanding the matter. Contending that the Appellate Authority/2nd respondent has no power to remand the matter to the 3rd respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant drew analogy from Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and contended that as per Section 23(3) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the Appellate Authority has no power to remand the matter to the Rent Control Authority for fresh consideration. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon P. Narasimhan and Others v. Narayanachetty and Others (1982) TLNJ 462. 9. It was further argued that exercising powers under Section 10 of Act 10 of 1969, the Appellate Authority, being a Civil Court, has all the powers to deal with the matter and while so the 2nd respondent was not justified in remitting the matter back to the 3rd respondent and in such circumstances, 1st respondent rightly set aside the order of the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Collector and the learned single Judge was not right in interfering with the order of the 1st respondent. 10. To prove that he is the cultivating tenant, the tenant-Ganesan has to prove that he contributed his physical labour. Before the 3rd respondent-Record Officer, the tenant has not produced any tenancy agreement/lease deed/lease rent receipt or extract of Adangal in support of his case that he is a tenant. He has examined one Chinnasamy Muthuiriyar, who has stated that the tenant-Ganesan has been the cultivating tenant and that once he took the lease paddy of the tenant-Ganesan by his cart and delivered to the land lady. He has also stated that only the tenant is cultivating the subject land on behalf of the land owner. 11. Before the 3rd respondent-Recovery Officer, one Periannan (R.W.1), who is a tenant of the nearby land in S.F. No. 411/A2 owned by one George Victor and one Rajamanickam were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2. R.W. 1 has stated that the tenant-Ganesan never cultivated the land in question. R.W.2-Rajamanickam has stated that the land originally belonged to his brother-in-law-Thillainayagam Pillai, who cultivated the land personally till his death in 1955 and thereafter his wife-Gnanambal was cultivating the land and after her death the appellant herein is cultivating the land. Upon consideration of evidence and pointing out that the tenant-Ganesan has not established his tenancy, the 3rd respondent has dismissed the petition-T.R. No. 11/82. At the time when the petition was dismissed, the Record Officer-3rd respondent has also referred to the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.1291 of 1978 filed by the land owner for permanent injunction. As against the dismissal of the suit-O.S. No.1291 of 1978, the land owner has filed Appeal-A.S. No. 12 of 1981 and the same was allowed. 12. At the time when the petition was dismissed, the Record Officer-3rd respondent has also referred to the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.1291 of 1978 filed by the land owner for permanent injunction. As against the dismissal of the suit-O.S. No.1291 of 1978, the land owner has filed Appeal-A.S. No. 12 of 1981 and the same was allowed. 12. When the appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent-Sub-Collector, the 2nd respondent has pointed out that as against the judgment in A.S.No.12 of 1981, second appeal has been filed before the High Court and the same has been pending and the 3rd respondent-Record Officer has not kept in view the filing of the second appeal. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that so far the appellant has not received any notice in respect of filing of second appeal. The 2nd respondent observed that both parties have not adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence and to enable the parties to produce further documentary and oral evidence, the 2nd respondent has remitted the matter to the 3rd respondent/Record Officer. 13. The main contention of the Appellant is that under Section 6 of Act 10 of 1969, any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (8) of Section 3, sub-section (3) of Section 4 or subsection (3) of Section 5 may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority specified by the Government and the decision of such appellate authority shall be final. As per Section 10 of the Act, the Record Officer or the Appellate Authority or the District Collector or the Officer referred to in Section 7 shall, for the purposes of the Act have the same powders as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely: .(a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; .(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; .(c) receiving evidence on affidavit; .(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses; and any proceeding before the Record Officer or the appellate authority or the District Collector shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. 14. By a conjoint reading of Section 6 and Section 10 of the Act, it is evident that the appellate authority has all the trappings of a Civil Court and empowered to deal with the appeal and the decision of such authority on such appeal shall be final. As per Section 10 of the Act, the appellate authority shall be considered as a Civil Court and it has all trappings of Civil Court. Having the trappings of Civil Court, in our considered view, the appellate authority/Sub-Collector has the power either to deal with the matter himself or to remit the matter back to the Record Officer. While so, to curtail the powers of the Appellate authority would not be in the spirit of the Act. The parties appearing before the Record Officer/appellate authority may or may not have the assistance of lawyers and at times might present the case by themselves. In such circumstances, the parties, be it, the tenant or landlord, cannot be expected to comprehensively present their case adducing all necessary evidence and materials. Considering the object of the Act, which is to provide for the preparation and maintenance of record to tenancy rights in respect of agricultural lands, be it the appellate authority or the revisional authority, does have the power either to deal with the matter by themselves or to remit the matter back to the concerned authority. 15. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant drawing analogy from Section 23(3) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act cannot be countenanced. Under Section 23(3), the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act shall call for the records of the case from the controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and if necessary after making such further enquiry as he thinks fit either personally or though the controller shall decide the appeal. Thus, under Section 23(3) of the Act, the appellate authority itself was called upon to make further enquiry, either personally or through controller, and there is an embargo upon appellate authority to remit the matter back to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration. Having regard to both the enactments, we are of the view that no analogy can be drawn from Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to the provisions of Act 10 of 1969. 16. Placing reliance upon Mohd. Having regard to both the enactments, we are of the view that no analogy can be drawn from Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to the provisions of Act 10 of 1969. 16. Placing reliance upon Mohd. Shahnawaz Akhtar and Another v. 1st ADJ Varanasi and Others JT 2002 (8) SC 69, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Raghavachari contended that the question of finding of fact whether Ganesan was a tenant or not was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Record Officer and while so learned single Judge was not right in going into the adequacy or insufficiency of evidence led on a point. Observing that writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors beyond jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals, the Supreme Court has held that exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court cannot go into the question of adequacy or insufficiency of the evidence. Court must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced by the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain impugned finding. It is well settled that the adequacy or insufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court and it is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. 17. We have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has only referred to the findings of the concerned authority and made certain observations, pointing out the need for remitting the matter to the 3rd Respondent by the 2nd respondent/Appellate authority. The learned single Judge has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter nor expressed any opinion on the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. As observed by the learned single Judge, by remitting the matter to the 3rd respondent, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties and both parties will have the opportunity to put forth their respective cases before the 3rd respondent-Record Officer. As observed by the learned single Judge, by remitting the matter to the 3rd respondent, no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties and both parties will have the opportunity to put forth their respective cases before the 3rd respondent-Record Officer. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and we do not find any reason warranting interference with the order of the learned single Judge and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. The second respondent/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.