IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27/08/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
W.P. No. 14182 of 1995
and
W.M.P. No. 27512 of 2000
R. Chinnadurai Padayachi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. R. Kasinathan
2. L. Chinnappa Padayachi
3. C. Thangarasu Padayachi
4. The Additional Records Officer
& the Additional Tahsildar
Kumbakonam Taluk
Thanjavur District
5. The Special Deputy Collector
Revenue Court (Special Deputy Collector)
Kumbakonam Taluk
Thanjavur District
6. The District Revenue Officer
Thanjavur District
Thanjavur ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr. T.P. Kathiravan
For Respondent : Mr. T. Susindran for R1
Mr. M. Mahalingam, Government
Advocate for R4 to R6
No appearance for R2 and R3
:ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above petition seeking for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the 4th respondent’s
proceedings in R.T.R. No. 112 of 1983 dated 31-08-1983 and subsequent
proceedings in R.T.R. No. 34/91, dated 28-06-1993 and 5th respondent’s
proceedings in R.T.R. Appeal P. No. 6/93 dated 19-01-1994 and 6th
respondent’s proceedings in R.T.R.R.P. No. 4 of 1994, I-3 dated 2 4-10-1994
and quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to dispose of the matter on
merits by giving opportunity to the petitioner to examine the petitioner’s
witnesses in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
2. Heard both sides. The petitioner and 3rd respondent herein
have entered into a sale agreement in respect of agricultural lands measuring
10 cents in RS No. 35/2 out of 31 cents at No.88, Kothangudi Thattimal
Village on 04-06-1984 for a sum of Rs.3,625/-. The 3rd respondent, though
received a sum of Rs.1,000/- as advance under the said agreement failed to
execute the sale deed, with the result the petitioner filed suit in O.S. No.
6 of 1985 for specific performance of the contract and the said suit was also
decreed by the trial court. The trial court itself executed a sale deed dated
06-03-1991 which was registered as document No.121 of 1991 with Sub-registrar,
Swamimalai. The petitioner has filed E.P. No. 98 of 1991 for recovery of
possession and possession was also handed over on 13-04-1991 in the presence
of Village Administrative Officer and others. Thereafter, the 1st respondent
allegedly interfered with the possession of the plaintiff, hence a complaint
dated 02-05-1991 was filed by him with the local police. The 1st respondent
has also filed another suit in O.S. No. 5 of 1991 to restrain the petitioner
from interfering into his possession on the ground that he is a cultivating
tenant under the 3rd respondent herein. It is also alleged by the 1st
respondent that the 2nd respondent has executed a tenancy agreement dated
23-06-1983, which agreement was also recorded by the 4th respondent in R.T.R.
No. 112 of 198 3 dated 30-01-1983. The petitioner has also filed an
application before the 4th respondent in T.R.R.P. No. 34 of 1991 to cancel
the earlier proceedings against the 1st respondent. The petitioner herein has
canvassed before the 4th respondent that the property originally belonged to
one Lakshmana Padayachi, later under a partition deed dated 29-06-1993 the
same was allotted to the 2nd respondent herein. Subsequently, the said
property was partitioned between the 2nd respondent with his two sons namely
Rajaram and Thangaraj, 3rd respondent herein and allotted 10 cents each. The
2nd respondent sold his share in Survey No.35/2 along with another son
measuring about 20 cents to the 1st respondent’s wife. The portion allotted
to the 3rd respondent to the extent of 10 cents was purchased in the manner
mentioned above and sale deed executed by the court and possession also
delivered to him. According to the petitioner, the respondents 1 to 4
colluded with each other with the result R.T.R. No. 112 of 1993 was ordered
against him. The petitioner came to know the R.T.R. Proceedings only after
receipt of the pleadings in O.S. No.5 of 1991. It is also the case of the
petitioner that “adangal” in the fasli 1393 and 1395 do not contain the name
of 1st respondent as cultivating tenant. The 4th respondent has passed the
impugned order dated 28-06-1993 in R.T.R. No. 112 of 1983 rejecting the
petitioner’s contention. The 2nd and 3rd respondents do not oppose the
petitioner’s contention.
3. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent/first
appellate authority mechanically confirmed the findings of the 4th respondent
and dismissed the appeal on 19-01-1994. The 5th respondent also failed to
consider the decree passed in O.S. No. 6 of 1985 and order passed in E.P.
No. 98 of 1991 in O.S. No. 6 of 1985 dated 13-04-1991 thereby the
possession was delivered to the petitioner. Against the order of
the 5th respondent, the petitioner herein has filed a revision petition under
Section 7 of the Act before the 6th respondent in R.T.R.R.P. No. 4 of 1994
and the 6th respondent also dismissed the revision.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that nevertheless change of ownership the fact remains that the 1st
respondent herein is a cultivating tenant which was duly registered as per the
Act by the 4th respondent which was also confirmed by the 5 th and 6th
respondents, hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Admittedly, in this case, the record of tenancy was registered
in the name of the first respondent herein as early as 1983. The petitioner
herein has become owner of the property consequent to the sale deed executed
by the Civil Court on 06-03-1991. It is also not disputed by the respondents
that possession was delivered as per the order passed in the execution
petition on 13-04-1991. The authorities, after taking into account of kist
receipts, land rent receipts, records produced by the 1st respondent to show
that he is a small farmer found that 1st respondent is a cultivating tenant.
It is also rightly pointed out by the authorities that the 1st respondent was
in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant even prior to the sale
agreement dated 04-06-1984 entered into between the petitioner and the 3 rd
respondent herein. Though ownership has been changed in the name of the
petitioner, the land has been under the cultivation of the 1 st respondent
ever since 1983, the date in which his name was registered as cultivating
tenant i.e., 31-08-1983.
6. As rightly pointed out by the authorities, change of ownership
cannot affect registration of land records of tenancy rights in favour of the
1st respondent. Moreover, no documents were produced by the petitioner before
the authorities to show that he has cultivated the lands. No details
furnished by both sides in respect of suit in O.S. No. 5 of 1991 filed by
the 1st respondent herein against the petitioner. However, the petitioner has
produced a xerox copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 370 of 1991 dated
29-10-1999 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam and submitted
that the said court dismissed the suit for injunction filed by the 1st
respondent in respect of the very same land, which is the subject matter of
this writ petition, which is not disputed by the respondents 1 to 3.
Admittedly, the said suit was decreed long after the order dated 24-10-1994
passed by the 6th respondent herein. Subsequent events, if any alter the
rights of the parties, it is always open to them to approach the authorities
to seek their remedy. The orders passed by the authorities are based on valid
evidence and on independent consideration. Hence, no interference is
warranted.
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. NO costs.
Connected WMP is also closed.
27-08-2002
rsh
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
1. The Additional Records Officer
& the Additional Tahsildar
Kumbakonam Taluk
Thanjavur District
2. The Special Deputy Collector
Revenue Court (Special Deputy Collector)
Kumbakonam Taluk
Thanjavur District
3. The District Revenue Officer
Thanjavur District