Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3539 (MAD)

Valliammal v. M. Nataraj Gurukkal

2014-09-22

V.M.VELUMANI

body2014
Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 17.02.2012, made in F.R.P.No.20 of 2003, on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court, Trichy. 2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the tenant of the land belonging to Arulmighu Choleeswaraswamy Temple, Samalapuram, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District. Originally, one Rangasamy Gounder, father of the petitioners, was the cultivating tenant in respect of 2.50 acres of agricultural land belonging to the Temple from the year 1971. The Hereditary Trustee, the respondent herein filed F.R.P.No.20 of 2003 on the file of Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Court, Trichy, for fixing the lease amount at Rs.25,000/-for 2.50 acres under the cultivation of Rengasamy Gounder. During the pendency of the said petition, Rengasamy Gounder died and the legal representatives, the petitioners herein were impleaded as party respondents. 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.1,00,000/- per year. 3. To substantiate his claim, the respondent filed and marked Exs.A1 to A6. Exs.A4 and A5 are the extract of Adangal and 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.25,000/-for 2.50 acres will be the reasonable amount for the land under the cultivation of the petitioners. The petitioners 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 Rs.350/-, as lease amount, is the correct amount and there is no necessity to enhance the said amount. 4. Opportunities were given to the petitioners to let in evidence. As they did not avail the said opportunity, the proceedings with regard to their evidence was closed. 5. 4. Opportunities were given to the petitioners to let in evidence. As they did not avail the said opportunity, the proceedings with regard to their evidence was closed. 5. The learned Assistant Commissioner considered the petition, evidence and documents filed on behalf of the respondent herein and counter filed by the petitioners 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.25,000/-for 2.50 acres. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court by filing the present civil revision petition. 6. Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S. Vijayashanthi, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Chitta and Adangal 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. In the Chitta and Adangal, it has not been stated so. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that only during rainy season, there will be water in the Well and then only, cultivation can be done. If the monsoon fails, no cultivation can be done. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that for these reasons, Rs.350/-for 2.50 acres is 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 petitioners are cultivating cash crops, like paddy, sugarcane and plantain and earning more than Rs.1,00,000/-per acre. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the lease amount of Rs.350/-was fixed in the year 1971 and no enhancement was made thereafter. Therefore, the well considered order of the learned Assistant Commissioner fixing the lease amount of Rs.25,000/-for 2.50 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 petitioners as well as the respondent. 10. Therefore, the well considered order of the learned Assistant Commissioner fixing the lease amount of Rs.25,000/-for 2.50 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 petitioners as well as the respondent. 10. From the Chitta and Adangal, it is seen that the land in question is a nanja land and the petitioners are cultivating paddy, sugarcane and plantain. The Development Officer, Agriculture Department, has given a Certificate to the effect that the petitioners will easily get an income of Rs.1,00,000/- by cultivating 2.50 acres of nanja land in their possession. Even from the documents produced by the petitioners, it is seen that the land in question is a nanja land. They have not denied that there is a Well in the land in question and they have not let in any evidence to show that there is no water in the Well and not produced any documents to show that they have 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.