Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 30.07.2010 made in F.R.P.No.19 of 2003, on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court, Trichy. 2. The petitioner is the legal heir of the tenant of the land belonging to Arulmighu Choleeswaraswamy Temple, Samalapuram, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District. Originally, one Sennimalai Gounder, father of the petitioner, was the cultivating tenant in respect of 3.10 acres of agricultural land belonging to the Temple from the year 1970. The Hereditary Trustee, the respondent herein filed F.R.P.No.19 of 2003 on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court, Trichy, for fixing the lease amount at Rs.30,000/-for 3.10 acres under the cultivation of Sennimalai Gounder. During the pendency of the said petition, Sennimalai Gounder died and the legal representative, the petitioner herein was impleaded as party respondent. Before the learned Assistant Commissioner, the respondent examined the Village Administrative Officer as P.W.1, who is the sister of the respondent. She has stated that the land in question is a nanja land and in the said land, paddy, sugarcane and plantain are cultivated and it is a double crops land. There is a Well in the land. The Lessee is cultivating paddy, sugarcane and plantain and is earning Rs.1,20,000/- per year. 3. To substantiate his claim, the respondent filed and marked Exs.A1 to A6. Exs.A3 and A4 are the extract of Adangal and Chitta and Ex.A5 is the copy of Jamabandhi Chitta. These documents are filed to substantiate the claim of the Temple that the Lessee is cultivating paddy, sugarcane and plantain. Ex.A6 is the Certificate given by the Development Officer, Agriculture Department, Palladam, to the effect that by cultivating sugarcane, Rs.40,000/- will be the income per acre and 2700 kgs. paddy can be harvested per acre. Based on these documents, the respondent contended that Rs.30,000/-for 3.10 acres will be the reasonable amount for the land under the cultivation of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner examined himself and cross-examined the said witness to the effect that there is no water in the Well and for number of years, no cultivation was done in the said land and it is only a single crop land and he is not cultivating paddy, sugarcane and plantain, but he is cultivating Cholam, Ragi and Cumbu. 4. The petitioner examined himself and cross-examined the said witness to the effect that there is no water in the Well and for number of years, no cultivation was done in the said land and it is only a single crop land and he is not cultivating paddy, sugarcane and plantain, but he is cultivating Cholam, Ragi and Cumbu. The statement of the respondent that the petitioner will be getting an income of Rs.1,20,000/- is an exaggerated amount and the claim of Rs.30,000/-for 3.10 acres as lease amount is untenable. The petitioner filed and marked Exs.R1 to R5 to prove that he cultivated only Cholam, Cumbu and Ragi. 5. The learned Assistant Commissioner considered the petition, evidence and documents filed on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent herein and counter filed by the petitioner herein, passed orders on merits. On such consideration, the learned Assistant Commissioner, accepted the contention of the respondent herein and fixed the lease amount of Rs.30,000/- for 3.10 acres. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present civil revision petition. 6. Heard Mr. G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Vijayashanthi, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the documents filed by the respondent herein cannot be relied, as the same has been issued by the Village Administrative Officer, who is the sister of the Trustee of the Temple. Further, the learned Assistant Commissioner erred in holding that the paddy, sugarcane and plantain are cultivated in the said land. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that only during rainy season, there will be water in the Well and then only, cultivation can be done and the petitioner is not cultivating paddy, sugarcane and plantain, but he is cultivating Cholam, Ragi and Cumbu. The statement of the respondent that the petitioner will be getting an income of Rs.1,20,000/-is an exaggerated amount and the claim of Rs.30,000/- for 3.10 acres as lease amount is untenable. The petitioner filed and marked Exs.R1 to R5 to prove that he cultivated only Cholam, Cumbu and Ragi. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that Rs.650/-, as lease amount, is the correct amount and there is no necessity to enhance the said amount and if the monsoon fails, no cultivation can be done. The petitioner filed and marked Exs.R1 to R5 to prove that he cultivated only Cholam, Cumbu and Ragi. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that Rs.650/-, as lease amount, is the correct amount and there is no necessity to enhance the said amount and if the monsoon fails, no cultivation can be done. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that for these reasons, Rs.650/- for 3.10 acres for the reasonable amount and prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the land in question is a double crop nanja land and the petitioner is cultivating cash crops, like paddy, sugarcane and plantain and earning more than Rs.1,20,000/-per acre. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the lease amount of Rs.650/-was fixed in the year 1970 and no enhancement was made thereafter. Therefore, the well considered order of the learned Assistant Commissioner fixing the lease amount of Rs.30,000/-for 3.10 acres is a reasonable amount and there is no reason to interfere in the said order. 9. I have carefully considered the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 10. From the records, it is seen that the land in question is a nanja land and the petitioner is cultivating paddy, sugarcane and plantain. The Development Officer, Agriculture Department, has given a Certificate to the effect that the petitioner will easily get an income of Rs.1,20,000/-by cultivating 3.10 acres of nanja land in his possession. Even from the documents produced by the petitioner, it is seen that the land in question is a nanja land. He has not denied that there is a Well in the land in question and he has not let in evidence to show that there is no water in the Well and not produced any documents to show that he has not cultivated the land in question for number of years. The Assistant Commissioner has considered all the materials on record in a proper perspective and there is no irregularity or illegality in the said order. Hence, there is no necessity to interfere with the said order. 11. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.