Judgment :- A. Selvam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.960 of 2006, dated 06.02.2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellants herein as petitioners have filed W.P(MD)No.960 of 2006 on the file of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent with regard to T.R.7/92, dated 25.03.2002, confirmed by the second respondent in proceedings Me.Mu.28/2002, dated 02.11.2014 and again confirmed by the first respondent by his order dated 29.09.2005 and quash the same. 3. It is averred in the petition that the land mentioned in the petition is the absolute property of the fourth respondent. The father of the petitioners by name Periyasamy Nadar has had enjoyed the same as a tenant of the fourth respondent till his demise. After his demise, the petitioners and fifth respondent have been enjoying the same as tenants of the fourth respondent and fifth respondent without the consent of the petitioners has manoeuvred to record his name as cultivating tenant in respect of entire extent. Under the said circumstances the petitioners have given an application to the third respondent so as to record their names as co-tenants and the third respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioners by way of holding that the petitioners have not challenged the entry made in favour of the fifth respondent in tenancy records and subsequently an appeal has been preferred before the second respondent. The second respondent has confirmed the order passed by the third respondent and again an appeal has been preferred before the first respondent. The first respondent has also confirmed the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3. Under the said circumstances the present writ petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the first respondent it is averred that the petitioners have not availed the provision available under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 and therefore the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 are perfectly correct and the same do not warrant interference. Under the said circumstances, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Under the said circumstances, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned Single Judge after considering the divergent submissions made on either side, has dismissed the writ petition by way of holding that the petitioners have not established to the effect that they have contributed their labour for cultivating the land in question. Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the petitioners as appellants. 6. The short point that comes up for consideration in the present Writ Appeal is as to whether the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to be quashed? 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners has repeatedly contended that the land in question is the absolute property of the fourth respondent and the same has been leased out in favour of father of the petitioners and fifth respondent by name Periyasamy Nadar and till his demise he has had enjoyed the same by way of paying rent etc. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners has repeatedly contended that the land in question is the absolute property of the fourth respondent and the same has been leased out in favour of father of the petitioners and fifth respondent by name Periyasamy Nadar and till his demise he has had enjoyed the same by way of paying rent etc. to the fourth respondent and after his demise the name of the fifth respondent has alone been recognized as a tenant and subsequently the fifth respondent has filed a suit in Original Suit No.217 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam against his brothers for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein a compromise has been effected and in that compromise certain extent of property has been allotted to each brother and under the said circumstances the petitioners have submitted an application to the third respondent so as to modify the earlier entry by way of including their names and the third respondent without considering the nature of the claim of the petitioners has erroneously dismissed their application by way of holding that the petitioners should take appropriate proceedings against the entry made in favour of the fifth respondent and the order passed by the third respondent has erroneously been confirmed by the second respondent and the first respondent has also committed error in confirming the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 and under the said circumstances the present writ petition has been filed, but the learned Single Judge without considering the nature of the claim putforth on the side of the appellants/petitioners and also compromise effected in between the petitioners and fifth respondent has erroneously dismissed the writ petition and therefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to be quashed. 8. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has also equally contended that as per Section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, the petitioners cannot claim any right and further the petitioners are bound to submit certain records as per Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 and since they have not complied with Section 14 of the said Act and since the Act under which the petitioners made their claim, is not at all applicable to the lands of the fourth respondent, the claim of the petitioners has rightly been negatived by the third respondent and further the order passed by the third respondent has been rightly upheld by the second respondent and the first respondent has also rightly confirmed the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 and further the petitioners have not challenged the entry made in favour of the fifth respondent and the learned Single Judge after considering the infirmities found on the side of the petitioners has rightly dismissed the writ petition and therefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. 9. Basing upon the divergent submissions made on either side, it is easily discernible that the land in question has had been enjoyed by Periyasamy Nadar, who is none other than the father of the petitioners and fifth respondent. The specific argument putforth on the side of the fourth respondent is that the said Periyasamy Nadar has enjoyed the land in question as a tenant and after his demise, the third respondent has recorded the name of the fifth respondent as a sole tenant. 10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have submitted an application to the third respondent so as to record their names as co- tenants. The third respondent has simply rejected their claim by way of holding that since already the name of the fifth respondent has been recorded in the Register as tenant and since the petitioners have not challenged the same, the claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained. The view taken by the third respondent has been confirmed by the respondents 1 and 2. 11. The view taken by the third respondent has been confirmed by the respondents 1 and 2. 11. Basing upon the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into as to whether the petitioners can invoke provisions of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969? 12. The entire argument putforth on the side of the fourth respondent is as per Section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 and the same reads as follows: “Partial repeal of certain Acts.- On and from the date of the commencement of this Act, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) and the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 (Act 24 of 1956) shall stand repealed in their application to a cultivating tenant in respect of any land held by him under a public trust”. Even a cursory reading of the said Section, it is made clear that certain Cultivating Tenants Act have been repealed by the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961. But at the same time, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 has not at all been repealed. 13. As per Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, any person who is enjoying a property which comes within the purview of Public Trusts Act, should execute a lease agreement in triplicate in favour of temple. 14. The entire claim of the petitioners is based upon Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 and the same reads as follows: “Modification of entries in the approved record of tenancy rights.- (1) Where any person claims that in respect of any land already included in the approved record of tenancy rights any modification is required in respect of the entries in such record either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of the transfer of interest or by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make an application to the Record Officer for the modification of the relevant entries in the approved record of tenancy rights. (2) An application under sub-section(1) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim. (3)(a) 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 of tenancy rights, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order. (b) If the Record Officer decides that there is no case for effecting any modification in the entries in the approved record of tenancy rights he shall reject the application. (c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reasons for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed”. From a close reading of Section 5 of the said Act, it is easily discernible that the concerned Tahsildar is having power to make certain modification on the basis of application mentioned in Sub-section(2). 15. Even in the order passed by the third respondent, it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioners have submitted an application under Section 4(2) and Section 5(2) of the said Act. Therefore it is needless to say that the petitioners have rightly submitted an application to the third respondent. 16. As pointed out earlier, the fifth respondent as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.217 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam for getting the relief of perpetual injunction against his brothers. During pendency of the same, a compromise has been effected among the parties, wherein certain extent of land has been allotted to each brother. Therefore it is quite clear that even on the basis of compromise entered into in between brothers, certain extent has been allotted to the petitioners. 17. During pendency of the same, a compromise has been effected among the parties, wherein certain extent of land has been allotted to each brother. Therefore it is quite clear that even on the basis of compromise entered into in between brothers, certain extent has been allotted to the petitioners. 17. The only reason assigned by the third respondent is that since the name of the fifth respondent has already been recorded as a lessee in the concerned Register and the same has not been challenged by the petitioners, the claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained. The third respondent without considering the fact that the property in question has originally been leased out to the father of the petitioners and fifth respondent, erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioners. Therefore viewing from any angle, the order passed by the third respondent is not factually and legally sustainable and the confirmation orders passed by the first and second respondents are not equally sustainable. Under the said circumstances for considering the case of the petitioners afresh, this Court is of the view to remit the matter to the file of the third respondent. 18. The learned Single Judge without considering the factual aspects putforth on the side of the appellants/petitioners and also without considering the provision of Section 5 of the said Act has erroneously dismissed the writ petition. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has found considerable force in the contentions putforth on the side of the appellants/petitioners. 19. In fine, this Writ Appeal is allowed without costs and the order passed in W.P(MD)No.960 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge is set aside and W.P(MD)No.960 of 2006 is allowed without costs and the matter is remitted to the file of the third respondent. The appellants/petitioners are directed to file additional documents, if any, to the third respondent. The appellants/petitioners are also directed to execute lease deeds in triplicate in favour of the fourth respondent. The third respondent is directed to dispose of the matter after hearing both sides and pass necessary orders. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.