{"id":86309,"date":"2005-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005"},"modified":"2015-10-25T05:23:16","modified_gmt":"2015-10-24T23:53:16","slug":"m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record … on 7 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record … on 7 January, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated:  07\/01\/2005\n\nCoram \n\nThe Honurable Mr.  Justice V.KANAGARAJ    \n\nW.P.No. 230 of 1997 \n\nM.Chinnasamy                           ...  Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Tenancy Record Officer-cum-Tahsildar,\n   Udumalpet.\n\n2. Special Deputy Collector,\n    (Appellate Authority),   Salem.\n\n3. Revisional  Authority & Additional Collector,\n   Coimbatore.\n\n4. M.Muthukrishnan \n5. Sreedara Sivasubramaniam  \n6. M.Jagannathan \n7. Smt. Sayammal  \n8. Smt. Kamalam                                 ... Respondents<\/pre>\n
                Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of
\nIndia praying for the relief as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
For Petitioner:  Mr.T.R.Rajaraman<\/p>\n
For Respondents 1 to 3:  Mr.R.Chandrasekaran
\n                Govt.  Advocate<\/p>\n
For Respondents 4 to 6:  No appearance
\nFor Respondents 7 & 8:  Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy    <\/p>\n
:Order<\/p>\n
        The  above  writ  petition  has  been  filed  under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to  call  for  the
\nrecords of the third respondent in R.Dis.29617\/96\/C2 dated 28.11.1 996 thereby
\nconfirming  the  order  of  the  second  respondent  dated  22.2.1996  made in
\nA.P.No.27\/95 and that of the first respondent’s order dated 7.7.1995  made  in
\nT.R.No.6\/93 and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, the
\npetitioner would submit that the fifth respondent is the owner of an extent of
\n9.05 acres in S.No.4, 5 and 27B in Vadapoothinam village, Udumalpet Taluk  and
\nit  was  leased  out  by  him  to  the  father  of the petitioner by name late
\nV.Mounasamy Naidu who died on 21.3.1990 leaving behind him his widow  the  8th
\nrespondent, three  sons  i.e.   the petitioner and respondents 4 and 6 and one
\ndaughter the 7th respondent; that  the  4th  respondent  herein  has  filed  a
\npetition in T.R.No.6\/93 on the file of the First respondent under section 4(2)
\nof  the  Tamil  Nadu  Agricultural  Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 wherein
\nneither the petitioner nor the other heirs were made parties; that  on  coming
\nto  know  of the attempt of the fourth respondent to get himself registered as
\nthe sole tenant, the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 filed  an  application
\nbefore  the first respondent to implead as respondents to the said proceedings
\non ground that after the death of  their  father,  the  lands  were  in  their
\npersonal  cultivation  as  his heirs and therefore they should be heard in the
\nsaid proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The petitioner would further submit  that  the  fourth  respondent
\nfiled  a  counter  thereby  alleging  that after the death of their father, he
\nalone is in possession and cultivating the  land  that  the  first  respondent
\nwithout  understanding the legal right of the heirs of the original tenant, by
\nan exparte order dated 7.7.1995, recorded  the  fourth  respondent  as  tenant
\nunder  the  Act;  that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and the 6th
\nrespondent herein have preferred an appeal before the  second  respondent  who
\nhas  held  that the claimants have not produced any records to establish their
\nleasehold rights and that they are not cultivating the lands  in  question  by
\nexercising  their  personal  labour  and thus confirmed the order of the first
\nrespondent; that aggrieved by the said order of the appellate  authority,  the
\npetitioner  and  the  6th respondent have preferred a revision petition before
\nthe 3rd respondent and since the 3rd  respondent  also  confirmed  the  orders
\npassed  by  the respondents 1 & 2 even though the revision proceedings therein
\nhave produced the orders passed in CMA No.20\/1994 by the Sub Court,  Udumalpet
\nwhich  arose out of proceedings in O.S.No.560\/1993 filed 4th respondent before
\nthe District Munsif’s Court, Udumalplet, the petitioner has  come  forward  to
\nfile the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  petitioner  would  further  submit that the third respondent
\nwithout adverting to the legal right of succession as heirs  of  the  original
\ntenant  and  the  decision  of the civil court refusing to grant injunction in
\nfavour of the 4th  respondent,  has  come  to  a  wrong  conclusion  that  the
\npetitioner and the respondents 6 to 8 are not entitled to be
\nrecorded  as tenants under the Act; that admittedly his father Mounasamy Naidu
\nwas the tenant under the fifth respondent and he was a cultivating  tenant  as
\nhe was doing personal cultivation; that the petitioner and the respondent 6 to
\n8  were  assisting  him his cultivation even during his lifetime; that even if
\nthe claim of the fourth respondent that he alone  was  personally  cultivating
\nthe lands is accepted, the right of the other heirs to get themselves recorded
\nas  tenants  under  the  Act  along with 4th respondent cannot be denied; that
\ntenancy right is a property right and under  the  Hindu  Succession  Act,  the
\npetitioner  and the respondents 4 and 6 to 8 are the class-I, heirs; that even
\nthe personal cultivation by any member of the family of  the  original  tenant
\namounts to personal cultivation by all and therefore the authorities under the
\nAct ought to have recorded all the heirs of the original tenant as cultivating
\ntenant under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   The  petitioner  would further submit that the respondents 1 to 3
\nherein  have  completely  misdirected  themselves  in  considering  the  legal
\nposition  involved  in  the  case and they were in error in holding that every
\nheir of the deceased tenant should prove their personal  cultivation;  that  a
\n‘cultivating  tenant’ is defined as ‘a person who contributes his own physical
\nlabour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land  and
\nincludes  the  heir  of  such person, if the heir contributes his own personal
\nlabour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation  of  the  land’;
\nthat  in  the  present  case,  the  fourth respondent is the eldest son of the
\noriginal tenant; that admittedly, there was no partition among the members  of
\nthe family of late Mounasamy Naidu; that in the circumstances, the cultivation
\nby  any  of  the  members  of  the  family  of Mounasamy Naidu would amount to
\ncultivation by the family as a whole and under the circumstances,  respondents
\n1 to 3 ought to have recorded all the heirs of the deceased original tenant as
\nCultivating Tenants under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  petitioner  would  further submit that the fourth respondent
\nfiled a suit in O.S.No.560 of 1993 on  the  file  of  the  Court  of  District
\nMunsif,  Udumalpet,  for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and
\nthe sixth respondent from interfering with  his  possession  in  ‘A’  and  ‘B’
\nschedule properties in the suit; that ‘B’ schedule property in the suit is the
\nsubject  matter of the proceedings before respondents 1 to 3 herein; that even
\nthough in the proceedings before the first respondent, no claim was made based
\non any family arrangement, the fourth respondent who filed the above  suit  in
\nDecember,  1993  set  up  a  case of family arrangement in and by which he was
\ngiven the right to the lands exclusively;  that  the  fourth  respondent  also
\nfiled  I.A.No.1819  of 1993 for a temporary injunction pending disposal of the
\nsuit on the same  pleading;  that  the  petitioner  filed  h  is  counter  and
\ncontested  the application for injunction denying the averment relating to the
\nfamily arrangement; that the petitioner claimed a right to be a tenant as heir
\nof his father and the learned District Munsif, by his  order  dated  10.2.1994
\nallowed the application and granted injunction as against which the petitioner
\npreferred  an  appal  in  C.M.A.No.20  of  1994  before the Subordinate Judge,
\nUdumalpet, who allowed the appeal insofar as  the  ‘B’  schedule  property  is
\nconcerned,  which is the subject matter of the writ petition and dismissed the
\ninjunction application; that the learned Subordinate Judge has held  that  the
\nplaintiff  (the  fourth  respondent  herein) had not established his exclusive
\npossession of the property and therefore the relief was not granted; that  the
\nsuit  for  injunction  is  still  pending;  that the petitioner along with his
\nmother and sister (the respondents 7 and 8) have filed O.S.No.425 of  1993  on
\nthe  file  of the Sub Court, Udumalpet on 16.12.1 993 for partition of all the
\nproperties of his father including the leasehold lands which are  the  subject
\nmatter  of  the  writ  petition  and the same is pending; that the above facts
\nclearly disclose that the fourth respondent is not in exclusive possession  of
\nthe  leasehold  lands;  that  the  parties  are  all  in  joint possession and
\ntherefore the respondents 1 to 3 ought to have recorded all the heirs  of  the
\noriginal tenant as cultivating tenants under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   The  petitioner would further submit that even though himself and
\nrespondents 6 to 8 were ordered to be impleaded as parties to the  proceedings
\nby the first respondent, no steps were taken by the fourth respondent to serve
\nhis  original  application  on  any  one  of  them; that even though the first
\nrespondent had directed the fourth respondent to take steps after  cultivating
\nthem to be impleaded as parties, no step was taken by the fourth respondent by
\namending   the   main   petition;   that  in  fact,  during  the  pendency  of
\nT.R.No.6\/1993, a compromise was reached on 3.11.1994 in and by  which  it  was
\nagreed  that  the  petitioner  and respondents 4 and 6 would be allotted 1\/3rd
\nshare each in the leasehold lands and that the 4th respondent  would  withdraw
\nall  the cases including T.R.No.6\/1993; that inspite of the above facts, the 4
\nth respondent  proceeded  with  T.R.No.6\/1993  without  disclosing  the  civil
\nproceedings  and  compromise  reached  between  the parties and therefore, the
\npetitioner and other heirs were not  in  a  position  to  participate  in  the
\nproceedings  before  the  first  respondent  and  in  these circumstances, the
\nauthorities ought to have given an opportunity to them to  submit  their  case
\nbefore  deciding  the application; that the respondents 1 to 3 have completely
\nignored  the  law  of  succession  applicable  to  the  family  members  of  a
\ncultivating  tenant and the order recording the fourth respondent alone as the
\ntenant is, therefore, contrary to law and would pray to set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The fourth respondent would file a counter thereby denying all the
\nallegations of the petition and further submitting that his  father  Mounasamy
\nNaidu  was  a  cultivating  tenant  to  an  extent  of  9 acres and 5 cents in
\nS.F.Nos.4,5 and 27; that this respondent has been in continuous possession and
\nenjoyment of the lands even during the lifetime of  his  father  by  rendering
\nassistance  and  help by contributing his physical labour and after the demise
\nof his father, he had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands
\nfor the past 32 years and hence he  filed  a  petition  before  the  concerned
\nauthorities  to record his name as cultivating tenant in the record of tenancy
\nafter producing requisite documents to  establish  his  claim  that  he  is  a
\ncultivating tenant such as adangal extracts, kist receipts, house tax receipts
\nand  the  Village  Administrative  Officer  has  let  in  evidence  before the
\nAppellate Authority to prove that this respondent alone has been  continuously
\ncultivating  the  lands  in  exclusion  of  other legal representatives of the
\ndeceased erstwhile tenant.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  This respondent would further submit that the respondents 1 to  3,
\nafter elaborately considering the entire
\narguments and materials placed before them, have rightly and concurrently held
\nthat  this  respondent  alone  has  been  cultivating the lands in question in
\nexclusion of the other legal representatives and this respondent alone  is  in
\nactual  physical  possession  and  enjoyment  of the suit properties; that the
\norder passed in C.M.A.No.20\/1994 against  the  order  in  O.S.No.560\/1993  has
\nnothing  to do with the present proceeding to record this respondent’s name as
\na cultivating
\ntenant; that the respondents 1 to 3 have no jurisdiction to decide  the  issue
\nor  to  advert  to  the legal right of succession as to who is the heir of the
\noriginal tenant and the respondents 1 to 3 are barred under the very Act to go
\ninto the question of legal status of the petitioner and the  same  has  to  be
\ndecided only by the civil court.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   This respondent would further submit that the only question that
\nhas to be decided and found by the respondents 1 to 3  is  as  to  who  is  in
\nactual  physical  possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  lands  in  question  as
\ncultivating tenant and the authorities below have rightly  decided  that  this
\nrespondent  alone  is  the  cultivating  tenant  and that he is entitled to be
\nrecorded as a cultivating tenant; that in fact, this respondent as the  eldest
\nmale  member  of  the  family has been cultivating the lands in his individual
\ncapacity even during the  lifetime  of  his  father  and  continue  to  be  in
\npossession  as  cultivating  tenant  till  date; that the third respondent has
\ncorrectly held that the petitioner and the 6th respondent have not  taken  any
\nstep  to  file  any petition even after a lapse of two years and that they are
\nneither interested to record themselves as  tenants  nor  they  were  actually
\ncultivating the lands.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   This  respondent would further submit that he filed a suit in O.
\nS.No.132 \/1996 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and  others
\nfrom  interfering  with  his  peaceful  possession  and  enjoyment of the suit
\nproperties  and  pending  the  suit,  he  also  filed  I.A.No.4008  \/1996  for
\nad-interim  injunction and the same was granted and extended from time to time
\nand the same was in force till 27.6.1996 and  hence  it  is  clear  that  this
\nrespondent  has  established his actual physical possession and enjoyment even
\nbefore the civil court; that there is no relevant  material  at  all  produced
\neither  before  the  civil  court  of  before  the  respondents  1 to 3 by the
\npetitioner to prove that he is in joint possession of this respondent; that it
\nis true that the parties have entered into a compromise on 3.11.1994  but  the
\npetitioner  has  not complied with the conditions stipulated therein and hence
\nthe said deed of compromise was not acted upon; that the  petitioner  has  not
\nproperly   or   convincingly  established  his  case  before  the  appropriate
\nauthorities notwithstanding the fact that the  petitioner  was  aware  of  the
\nproceeding in the trial court for about 2 years from 12.7.1993 to 7.7.1995 and
\nfor 8 months in the appellate Court; that in a petition to record a particular
\nperson’s  name as tenant, only the actual physical possession and enjoyment of
\na cultivating tenant would be gone into and the
\nrespondents  1  to  3  have  rightly  exercised  their  power   within   their
\njurisdiction  and they need not go into the question of law of succession in a
\npetition filed under the Record of Tenancy Act.  On such grounds  and  further
\nsubmitting that he has been in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the
\nlands  for the past 32 years as cultivating tenant, this respondent would pray
\nto dismiss the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  The 8th respondent would file a counter affidavit  on  behalf  of
\nthe  7th  respondent also, she would support the contents of the writ petition
\nas substantially true and correct.  She would further  submit  that  her  late
\nhusband  Mounsasamy  was  admittedly recorded tenant of the concerned petition
\nproperly under 5th respondent and the said Mounasamy died on 21.3.1990 leaving
\nbehind him this respondent  and  three  sons  and  a  daughter  as  his  legal
\nrepresentatives.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   This  respondent  would further submit that when her husband was
\ncultivating  the  lands  in  question,  they  were  all  helping  him  in  the
\ncultivation and after his death, all his legal heirs continue to cultivate the
\nlands  providing  their physical labour and as such all the legal heirs of her
\nhusband became the tenants of the petition property, entitled to  be  recorded
\nas tenants in the approved record of tenancy register, maintained by the first
\nrespondent;  that  while  so, the fourth respondent, with a malafide intention
\nand without the knowledge of the other legal heirs, has filed  a  petition  in
\nT.R.6\/93  before  the  first  respondent  under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu
\nAgricultural Record of Tenancy Rights Act 1969 for recording him as  a  tenant
\nin  the  place  of  her deceased husband; that on coming to know the deceitful
\nintention of the 4th respondent, the petitioner, the 7th respondent  and  this
\nrespondent  have  filed  a  petition  before  the  first respondent praying to
\nimplead them as parties to T.R.6\/93 and to hear  their  objections  which  was
\ncontested  by  the fourth respondent stating that after the death of Mounasamy
\nNaidu, he is solely doing the cultivation  and  others  are  not  entitled  to
\nobject  his  petition;  that the enquiry was adjourned from time to time; that
\nultimately, the enquiry was  posted  to  3.7.1995  on  which  day,  the  first
\nrespondent  suo  motu appears to have adjourned the enquiry to 7.7.1995 on the
\nground that he was engaged in other duty; that subsequently, they were neither
\ninformed about the enquiry  date  nor  received  any  notice  from  the  first
\nrespondent about the enquiry date and it appears that the matter was called on
\n7.7.1995  and the petition was allowed exparte, without recording any evidence
\neither oral or documentary; that the first respondent has  committed  a  grave
\nerror  in  not calling upon the 4th respondent to prove his case by letting in
\nevidence and it is not only an error apparent on the face of the record but  a
\nmanifest illegality
\nresulting in failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   This respondent would further submit that Section 4(3)(a) of the
\nAct specifically provides as to how an application filed under  section  4  of
\nthe  Act  has  to  be  disposed  of and it contemplates that before passing an
\norder, the Record Officer shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and
\nshall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make them
\nresponsible either orally or in writing;  that  Rule  11  of  the  Tamil  Nadu
\nAgricultural  Lands  Record Tenancy Rights Rules, 1969 specifically prescribed
\nthe procedure to be followed by the authorities; that the  Record  Officer  is
\ndirected  to  fix  a date for hearing and give notice thereof to the applicant
\nand all other persons having interest in the lands; that the first  respondent
\nhas  violated  the  mandatory  direction  of  giving  notice  to  all  parties
\nconcerned; that the respondents 2 and 3 have also lost sight of the fact  that
\nthe  other legal representatives were not given a reasonable opportunity; that
\nthe respondents 1 to 3 have failed to note
\nthat the term ‘Cultivating Tenant’  would  include  the  legal  heirs  of  the
\ndeceased  tenant  also;  that the respondents 1 to 3 have erroneously erred in
\ncasting the burden of proof on the other legal heirs overlooking  that  it  is
\nthe  4th  respondent  who  has  approached  the authorities to record him as a
\ntenant of the land and hence he has to prove his case by letting in  evidence.
\nOn  such  arguments,  these  respondents  would  pray  to allow the above writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  In consideration of the  facts  pleaded,  having  regard  to  the
\nmaterials  placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both what
\ncomes to be known is that the above  writ  petition  has  been  filed  by  the
\npetitioner  praying  to  call  for  the  records  of  the  third respondent in
\nR.Dis.29617\/96\/C2 dated 28.11.1996 thereby confirming the order of the  second
\nrespondent  dated  22.2.1996  made in A.P.No.27 of 19 95 and that of the first
\nrespondent’s order dated 7.7.1995 made inT.  R.No.6\/93 and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  The case of the petitioner in short is that  the  5th  respondent
\nherein  is the owner of an extent of 9.05 acres of land in S.No.4,5 and 27B in
\nVadapoothinam village, Udumalpet Taluk;  that  that  said  property  had  been
\nleased out  in favour of the petitioner’s father V.  Mounasamy Naidu, who died
\non 21.3.1990 leaving behind, his widow, the 8th respondent Kamalam, their sons
\nviz., petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6 and  daughter  Sayammal,  the  7th
\nrespondent  herein  as  his  legal  heirs;  that  the petitioner’s brother 4th
\nrespondent filed T.R.63 \/93 under section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu  Agricultural
\nRecord  of  Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 for recording his name as a tenant in the
\nplace of his deceased father; that the petitioner and the other heirs were not
\nmade parties to the said proceedings; that they filed application  before  the
\nfirst  respondent  Tahsildar,  Udumalpet, stating that the lands were in their
\npersonal cultivation and they should be heard in the said  proceeding  but  on
\nthe  contrary  the  4th respondent argued that he was only in possession after
\nthe death of his father as the Cultivating tenant  and  the  first  respondent
\nTahsildar,  Udumalpet,  without  giving  effect  to  the  legal  rights of the
\npetitioner and the other legal heirs of the original tenant by his order dated
\n7.7.1995 recorded the 4th respondent as Cultivating Tenant.    Aggrieved,  the
\npetitioner and the 5th respondent preferred an appeal to the second respondent
\nand  the  appellate  authority stating that the petitioner and others have not
\nproduced  any  records  to  establish  their  claim  and  that  they  are  not
\ncultivating  the  lands  in question thereby confirming the order of the first
\nrespondent, aggrieved against which, the petitioner  and  the  6th  respondent
\npreferred  a  revision  before  the  3rd respondent who too committed the same
\nerror as the appellate authority and the initial authority and  confirmed  the
\norder of the lower authorities and hence the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   The  strong case put up on the part of the petitioner is that he
\nhimself and his brothers and sister besides the 4th respondent, are the  legal
\nheirs  of  their deceased father and they all continue to be in possession and
\nenjoyment of the lands in question and cultivating the same as the cultivating
\ntenants under the owner stepping into the shoes of their father, but in  spite
\nof themselves being the interested parties they were not either properly heard
\nor  recognised  as  the  tenants and without giving due opportunity, the first
\nrespondent  Tahsildar  Udumalpet  decided  the  case  in  favour  of  the  4th
\nrespondent  which  came  to  be  upheld  by  the  appellate  authority and the
\nrevisional authority  as  well  and  therefore  on  such  legal  grounds,  the
\npetitioner  would  come  forward  to  file the above writ petition seeking the
\nrelief extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  On a careful perusal of the materials placed on record  and  upon
\nhearing the learned counsel for the respondents barring the respondents 4 to 6
\nwho  have  not  chosen  to  appear  on  the  date of hearing of the above writ
\npetition, it could be seen that right from the beginning on initiation of  the
\ncase  in  T.R.No.6\/93  by  the  first respondent, the petitioner and the other
\nclaimants as cultivating  tenants  have  not  been  properly  heard  prior  to
\ndeciding  the matter and since they have got basically a strong case to be put
\nup, full opportunities must  have  been  afforded  to  them  particularly  the
\npetitioner  herein  since  this being relevant for consideration in accordance
\nwith the principles of natural justice.  The  authorities  should  have  given
\nfull  opportunities  for  all  the  parties  not  only to file their petitions
\nseeking inclusion of their names in the Record of  Tenancy  but  also  hearing
\nthem  properly thus deciding the whole matter on merits and in accordance with
\nlaw and since the authorities below have failed not only the first  respondent
\nTahsildar,  Udumalpet  but also the respondents 2 and 3, who are the Appellate
\nand Revisional Authorities have decided the matter without observing the legal
\nprinciples and therefore since it is a vital case that has to  be  decided  in
\nlaw  and  in  a larger spectrum they should have given adequate and reasonable
\nopportunities to all of the parties connected to the case of Record of Tenancy
\nregarding the lands in question and since  no  such  opportunities  have  been
\nafforded  for  all the interested parties particularly to the petitioner as it
\ncomes to be seen that on an overall consideration  of  the  entire  facts  and
\ncircumstances  of  the  case and in law it has become necessary on the part of
\nthis Court to cause its interference not only  in  setting  aside  the  orders
\npassed  by  the  respondents  1  to  3  but  also  further  directing the said
\nrespondents particularly the first respondent to hear the matter after  giving
\nthem due opportunity for all the interested parties and dispose of the same in
\naccordance with law and on merits and hence the following order.\n<\/p>\n
In result,<\/p>\n
        (i) The above writ petition succeeds and it stands allowed;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  The  order passed by the first respondent in T.R.No.6\/93 dated 7
\n.7.1995, and confirmed by  the  appellate  authority,  the  second  respondent
\nherein  in  A.P.No.27\/95  dated  22.2.1996  which was upheld by the revisional
\nauthority, the third respondent herein in R.Dis.29617\/96\/ C2 dated 28.11.21996
\nare hereby quashed;\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) The matter is  remanded  to  the  first  respondent,  Tahsildar,
\nUdumalpet  for  fresh  disposal  with due opportunities for all the interested
\nparties including the petitioner to be heard  and  to  decide  the  matter  on
\nmerits and in accordance with law;\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Rao\/ks <\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
1)Tenancy Record Officer-cum-Tahsildar,
\nUdumalpet.\n<\/p>\n
2) Special Dy.  Collector,
\n(Appellate Authority),
\nSalem.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Revisional Authority and Addl.  Collector,
\nCoimbmatore.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record … on 7 January, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 07\/01\/2005 Coram The Honurable Mr. Justice V.KANAGARAJ W.P.No. 230 of 1997 M.Chinnasamy … Petitioners -Vs- 1. Tenancy Record Officer-cum-Tahsildar, Udumalpet. 2. Special Deputy Collector, (Appellate Authority), Salem. 3. Revisional Authority & Additional Collector, Coimbatore. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record ... on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record ... on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-24T23:53:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record … on 7 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-24T23:53:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4001,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005\",\"name\":\"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record ... on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-24T23:53:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record … on 7 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record ... on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record ... on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-24T23:53:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record … on 7 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-24T23:53:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005"},"wordCount":4001,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005","name":"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record ... on 7 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-24T23:53:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-chinnasamy-vs-tenancy-record-on-7-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Chinnasamy vs Tenancy Record … on 7 January, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86309","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86309"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86309\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}