Judgment :- 1. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions have come up with a challenge to the orders passed by the Record of Tenancy Tahsildar, who is the Second Respondent in these Writ Petitions. 2. Heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, Mr. M.C. Swamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official Respondents. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent-Trust and Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent. 3. The Third Respondent-Trust is a Public Charitable Trust. They were the owners of lands in an extent of about 41.73 acres in various survey numbers in Vellalur village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore District Those lands have been let out to Tenants and the names of those Tenants had already been recorded under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record o Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969. But, it appears that all persons whose name, were entered in the record as Tenants passed away. The legal heirs did not take any steps to seek modification of the records, so as to include then names as Cultivating Tenants. 4. In the year 2012, the Third Respondent-Trust filed an Application before the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore in a scheme Suit seeking permission to sell the properties. The Principal Subordinate Court grained permission to the Third Respondent-Trust by an order dated 1.3.2012 in I.A. No.180 of 2012 in O.S. No.1146 of 2001. In pursuance of the said order, the Third Respondent-Trust sold the lands to the Fourth Respondent in these Writ Petitions under a Sale Deed dated 14.3.2012. 5. But even two years prior to date of sale, the Third Respondent-Trust filed Applications in T.R. Nos.3 to 12 of 2010 on the file of the Second Respondent under Section 5 of the Act for modification of the entries in the record. The Applications filed by the Third Respondent-Trust showed only those whose names already found a place in the record as cultivating tenants, as the Respondents in those proceedings. The Applications also contained an averment to the effect that persons whose names were found in the record had already died. 6. The Applications filed by the Third Respondent-Trust showed only those whose names already found a place in the record as cultivating tenants, as the Respondents in those proceedings. The Applications also contained an averment to the effect that persons whose names were found in the record had already died. 6. The Second Respondent took up all the Applications together for enquiry, issued notices to the dead persons, recorded a statement of the Village Administrative Officer to the effect that the legal heirs of the deceased tenants were not cultivating the properties and on the basis of the said statements, passed a common order in all the Applications on 21.5.2010 deleting the names of the persons whose names were recorded as cultivating tenants. It is against the said common order that the Petitioners have come up with the above Writ Petitions. 7. The short ground on which the Petitioners have come up before this Court is that the enquiry conducted by the Second Respondent turned out to be a farce and empty formality, as persons, who were admittedly dead, were shown as Respondents and that notices were issued only to dead persons. There was no independent verification by the Second Respondent, apart from the statement of the Village Administrative Officer that the legal heirs of the deceased Tenants were not cultivating the properties. Therefore, on this simple ground, the Petitioners challenge the impugned orders. 8. Before getting into the factual details, it is necessary to take a look at the definition of the word 'Tenant' given in Section 2(8) of the Act and the procedure prescribed for modification of entries under Section 5 of the Act lead with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Rules, 1969. 9. 8. Before getting into the factual details, it is necessary to take a look at the definition of the word 'Tenant' given in Section 2(8) of the Act and the procedure prescribed for modification of entries under Section 5 of the Act lead with Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Rules, 1969. 9. The expression 'Tenant' is defined under Section 2(8) of the Act, which reads as follows: "2(8)(i) 'Tenant' in respect ofany area, in the State(other than the Kanyakumari District)— (a) means in relation to any land to which the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act XXV of1955), applies a cultivating tenant as defined in clause (aa) of Section 2 of that Act and includes - (i) a Mattuparamdar referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 7 of the Tiruchirapalli Kaiaeruvaram and Mattuparam Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXVI of1958); and (ii) a possessory mortgagor, who, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, with the possessory mortgagee contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land subject to possessory mortgage; and (b)means in relation to any land to which the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act LVII of 1961), applies a cultivating tenant as defined in clause (5) of Section 2 of the Act; (ii) 'tenant' in respect of any area in Kanyakumari District— (a) in relation to any land other than the land to which the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act LVII of 1961) applies — (i) means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied; and (ii) includes — (a) any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the Tenancy Agreement; (b) the heir of such person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; (c) a sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land; or (d) any such sub-tenant who continues in possession of the land notwithstanding that the person who sublet the land to such sub-tenant ceases to have the right to possession of such land; (e) a possessory mortgagor who, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, with the possessory mortgagee, contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land subject to possessory mortgage; but (iii) does not include a mere intermediary or his heir; (b) means in relation to any land to which the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act LVII of 1961) applies, a cultivating tenant as defined in clause (5) of Section 2 of that Act." 10. As seen from the definition, it is inclusive. It includes the heir of any person whose name is already on record, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land. The other parts of the definition may not be relevant for our present discussion. Therefore, I am not dealing with the same. 11. By virtue of the definition contained in Section 2(8)(ii)(b), a person claiming to be a Tenant within the definition of the said sub-clause, should satisfy two things, namely— (i) that he is a heir of such person; and (ii) that he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land. The definition clause uses the expression 'heir' and not the expression 'legal heir' or 'legal representative'. The inclusion of the heir of the deceased Tenant within the meaning of the expression is also made subject to the condition that he contributes his own physical labour. Therefore, all heirs or all legal heirs or all legal representatives may not be entitled to come within the definition of the term, if they do not satisfy the pre-condition prescribed under sub-clause (ii). 12. Coming to Section 5, sub-section (1) of Section 5 enables any person to seek a modification of the entry in the approved record, either by reason of death or by reason of transfer of interest or by reason of any subsequent change in the circumstances. It is admitted by both parties that persons whose names had been recorded as tenants had passed away long ago. Therefore, an Application under Section 5(1) could have been filed both by the landlord as well as by persons, who claim by virtue of transfer or even transmission. Both of them did not do for a long time. However, in the year 2010, the landlord, namely the Third Respondent-Trust filed the Applications, out of which, the present Writ Petitions arise. 13. The procedure to be followed in an enquiry on an Application under Section 5(1) is prescribed in sub-section (3) and Rule 11. Both of them did not do for a long time. However, in the year 2010, the landlord, namely the Third Respondent-Trust filed the Applications, out of which, the present Writ Petitions arise. 13. The procedure to be followed in an enquiry on an Application under Section 5(1) is prescribed in sub-section (3) and Rule 11. Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 5 reads as follows: "Before passing an order on an Application under sub-section (1) the Record officer shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. If the record officer decides that any modification should be made in respect of the entries in the approved record of tenancy rights he shall pass an order accordingly and shall effect the modification and make such incidental and consequential changes in the approved record or tenancy rights, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order." Rule 11 of the Rules reads as follows: "Procedure to be followed in disposing of Applications under Sections 4(3) & 5(3):On receipt of an Application under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or subsection (1) of Section 5, the Record Officer shall fix a date for hearing and give notice thereof to the applicant and all other persons having interest in the lands mentioned in the Application. On the date of hearing, the Record Officer shall give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. Where evidence is given orally, it shall be reduced to writing and got signed by the deponent." 14. A perusal of sub-section (3)(a) of Section 5 & Rule 11, shows that all parties concerned are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to make a representation in the enquiry conducted by the Second Respondent on an Application under Section 5(1). While Section 5(3)(a) uses only the expression 'the parties concerned', Rule 11, uses two expressions, namely 'all other persons having interest in the lands' and 'the parties concerned'. Therefore, an opportunity of hearing to all persons, who claim to have a right in the land is inherent in the procedure prescribed by the Act. 15. While Section 5(3)(a) uses only the expression 'the parties concerned', Rule 11, uses two expressions, namely 'all other persons having interest in the lands' and 'the parties concerned'. Therefore, an opportunity of hearing to all persons, who claim to have a right in the land is inherent in the procedure prescribed by the Act. 15. In addition to the Act and the Rules relating to record of tenancy rights, the provisions of one more Act, namely Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 are also to be taken note of, in view of the fact that the said Act of 1961 will have effect by virtue of Section 3 notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. But, it should also be noted that the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act is of the year 1969 and it came after the Public Trust Act. However, the question as to whether Section 3, which has an overriding effect upon any other Act, would also extend to subsequent enactment is not a matter of concern, at least in these cases. 16. But, the definition of the word 'cultivating tenant' appearing in Section 2(5) also includes the heir of a deceased Tenant, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of the family ofthe cultivation of the land. In other words, the language of Section 2(5)(ii)(b) in the 1961 Act is in pari materiawith Section 2(8)(ii)(b) of the 1969 Act. Therefore, at least to that extent, there is no conflict between these two enactments. 17. Keeping these statutory provisions in mind, let me now get back to the facts out of which the Writ Petitions arise. 18. In so far as the facts are concerned, the first two Writ Petitions fall under one category and the next two Writ Petitions fall under a different category. W.P. Nos.7514 & 12878 of 2012 are filed by the son/sons of persons, whose names were admittedly recorded in the approved record prior to the impugned orders. In other words, one Mr. Arjunan was a tenant whose name found a place in the approved record and it is his son by name Gopalakrishnan, who has come up with the First Writ Petition W.P. No.7514of 2012. Similarly, one Mr. In other words, one Mr. Arjunan was a tenant whose name found a place in the approved record and it is his son by name Gopalakrishnan, who has come up with the First Writ Petition W.P. No.7514of 2012. Similarly, one Mr. Mariyappa Konar was the person, whose name found a place in the approved record as a cultivating Tenant in respect of some of the lands and it is his sons by name Ramachandran and Lakshmanan, who have come up with W.P. No.12878 of 2012. Therein, there is no dispute on facts that the first two Writ Petitions are filed by the biological sons of persons whose names found a place as Cultivating tenants in the approved record. 19. Unfortunately, these persons were not issued with notices by the Second Respondent and the Second Respondent merely issued notices to dead persons and simply accepted the statement of the Village Administrative Officer to the effect that the legal heirs of the deceased Cultivating Tenants were not actually cultivating the lands. Before accepting the statement of the Village Administrative Officer, the Second Respondent has not even taken into account the Chitta Adangal, Kist Receipts, etc. Atleast, there is nothing on record before me to show that the Second Respondent took note of all those records. 20. Therefore, in so far as the first two Writ Petitions are concerned, atleast the fact that the Writ Petitioners are the heirs of the deceased cultivating tenants is not in dispute. But, the question as to whether they contributed their own physical labour or not is actually a question of fact. It is true that the Writ Petitioners have not made a positive averment in the Affidavits in support of the Writ Petitions that they satisfy both the requirements of the definition under Section 2(8)(ii)(b). But that, by itself, would not disqualify the Petitioners from at least a notice being issued. It is well settled that a mere repetition of the words contained in a Section will not entitle a person, without any evidence to show that they should have been heard. As a corollary, the absence of a statement in the Affidavits in support of the Writ Petitions would not also disentitle the Writ Petitioners from an opportunity of being heard. As a corollary, the absence of a statement in the Affidavits in support of the Writ Petitions would not also disentitle the Writ Petitioners from an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the first two Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed on the short ground that the Petitioners were entitled to notice before the impugned orders were passed. 21. In so far as the Third and Fourth Writ Petitions are concerned, they do not even satisfy the requirement of being heirs to persons whose names are recorded in the approved record. The Petitioner in W.P. No.12896 of 2012 is admittedly the son of one Nanjammal. But, the approved record never stood in the name of Nanjammal. The approved record stood in the name of Venkatachala Thevar and one Nagappa Thevar, with whom the Petitioner in the third Writ Petition is in no way connected. Therefore, he does not even satisfy the requirement of being a heir to the person whose name was show n in the approved record. 22. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contended that if the Writ Petitioner in the third Writ Petition would not fall within the meaning of Section 2(8)(ii)(b), he may at least fall under other clauses. But, I am unable to accept the said contention for the simple reason that when the person under whom he claims namely Nanjammal herself did not take any steps to modify the record and when admittedly the record stood in the name of someone else with whom the Writ Petitioner has no connection, the Witt Petitioner cannot claim a better right than what Nanjammal herself had. Hence, the third Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed, as even admittedly, the Petitioner is not the heir of the person, in whose name the recordstood. 23. Similarly, the fourth Writ Petition is by a person, who is only the son of the deceased tenant’s brother. The person, whose name was recorded in the record was one V. N. Vellingiri Thevar. The Respondents 3 & 4 have stated on record that the said Vellingiri Thevar himself left his wife and children. The Writ Petitioner is only the brother's son of the deceased Vellingiri Thevar. Hence, in the absence of any claim from Vellingiri Thevar's children, I do not think that the brother's son of Vellingiri can make a claim. 24. The Respondents 3 & 4 have stated on record that the said Vellingiri Thevar himself left his wife and children. The Writ Petitioner is only the brother's son of the deceased Vellingiri Thevar. Hence, in the absence of any claim from Vellingiri Thevar's children, I do not think that the brother's son of Vellingiri can make a claim. 24. It is true, as I have pointed out above, that the expression used in the definition section is 'heir'. Therefore, even a person, who claims by virtue of any testamentary or non-testamentary instrument can become a heir. But, that is not a case with which the Petitioner has come up before this Court. Therefore, in the absence of a claim from the normal biological heirs, the claim from the brother's son of the deceased cultivating tenant whose name found a place in the record, cannot be entertained. Therefore, W.P. No.12897 of 2012 is also liable to be dismissed. 25. Accordingly, W.P. Nos.7514 & 12878 of 2012 are allowed. W.P. Nos.12896 & 12897 of 2012 are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all the Miscellaneous Petitions are closed with an observation that I am not recording any finding on the disputed and contested question of possession between the parties.