Regina Jeyapaul Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1168228
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnApr-29-2014
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI
AppellantRegina Jeyapaul
Respondent1.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated: 29.04.2014 coram the honourable ms.justice k.b.k.vasuki w.p.(md.no.1849 of 2010 and m.p.(md.no.1 of 2010 regina jeyapaul .petitioner versus 1.the revenue divisional officer special deputy collector (revenue court) no.1, kamarajar 1st street, chokkikulam, madurai-2. 2.the tahsildar, under the record of tenancy act (madurai north) madurai taluk office, collectorate complex, madurai. 3.the trustee, sooraveli subbaier trust, 1-13, shanthi sodan melakkal main road, kochadai, madurai 625 016. 4.abraham (died) 5.a.seela (r5 substituted as legal heir of the deceased 4th respondent vide order of this court dated 13.6.2012 in mp.1/2012) 6.a.s.solomon thangaraj 7.a.simpson 8.a.simson selvaraj 9.a.selvam 10.a.maniarasu 11.a.ezhilarasu 12.a.amos (r6 to r12 impleaded vide order of this court dated 12.6.2012 made in mp.1/2012) .respondents writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the firs.respondent in proceedings ap22009 dated 18.12.2009 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. !for petitioner : mr.v.raghavachari ^for respondents : mr.g.muthukannan, ga -r1 & r2 mr.t.r.jeyapalan -r3 r4 (died) mr.k.r.laxman -r5 mr.m.thirunavukkarasu -r6 to r12 :order the writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the firs.respondent dated 18.12.2009 in ap.no.2/2009. 2.the facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows: the lands in s.nos.174, 173/1b measuring 2 acres and 44 cents in thallakulam village, madurai north belong to sooraveli subbaier trust. originally, one gnanam @ gnanambal w/o.vedamuthu, who is none else than the aunt of the fourth respondent herein by name abraham, was in possession and enjoyment of the same as cultivating tenant. after her death, the tenancy devolved upon two persons, one among whom is abraham, fourth respondent herein. the fourth respondent also obtained lease agreement in respect of the same property and had been cultivating the same. while so, the petitioner herein by name regina jeyapaul claiming herself as cultivating tenant, approached the second respondent tahsildar under the record of tenancy act in t.r.no.24/1988 for recognising her as cultivating tenant in respect of the lands in question. the proceedings ended in favour of the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein was accepted as tenant in respect of the property. 3.while so, the fourth respondent abraham since deceased filed another application in tr.no.36/1996 for registering his name as cultivating tenant. the petition was originally filed against the third respondent trust and the petitioner was at the instance of the third respondent impleaded as one of the respondents in the proceedings initiated by abraham. it is the contention raised by the fourth respondent abraham in tr.no.36/1996 that he was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner herein and he came to know about the same only during enquiry in tr.no.36/1996 and the order was passed, without any notice and without any opportunity of his being heard. the same was contested by both the petitioner herein and the third respondent trust-cum-owner. the third respondent herein/owner in tr.no.36/96 sailed with the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein as the second respondent therein denied any tenancy agreement executed by the third respondent trust in favour of the fourth respondent abraham as the petitioner therein. according to the petitioner herein as the second respondent therein, the right vested with the fourth respondent was already transferred in her favour and abraham appeared in person before the tahsildar in tr.no.24/1988 and admitted about the transfer of tenancy and admitted his non possession and possession of the petitioner herein as cultivating tenant. on the basis of such admission, tr.no.24/1988 was ordered by recognising the petitioner herein as cultivating tenant and by effecting mutation. the third respondent/owner of the lands supported the case of the petitioner herein in tr.no.36/1996. the second respondent tahsildar by accepting the petitioner's case and by disbelieving the fourth respondent's version, dismissed the application in tr.no.36/1996. 4.aggrieved against the same, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal in ap.2/2009 before the appellate authority, revenue court of madurai. the trust-cum-owner did not choose to contest the matter before the appellate authority. the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent herein would reiterate the same stand as raised before the tahsildar in tr.no.36/1996. the fourth respondent before the appellate authority raised an additional stand that he did not appear in person before the tahsildar and he was impersonated before the tahsildar for obtaining order in tr.no.24/1988. the firs.respondent special deputy collector (revenue court).madurai accepted the fourth respondent's plea and was of the view that the order in tr.no.24/88 was obtained without verifying the identity of the fourth respondent as one abraham and the copy of the order made in tr.24/98 was received directly from the party without bringing her into witness box and the same deprived the fourth respondent herein from cross examining the witness and the same has no binding effect. the firs.respondent revenue court has also on the basis of the available records, arrived at the conclusion that one gnanam was the original cultivating tenant and after her death, it devolved on her legal heirs by names ayinees and fourth respondent abraham and the property was shown to be belonging to the fourth respondent in tr.14/1983 and crp.11/85/g3 relating to the lands in possession of ayinees and no record was produced to show that the petitioner herein was a cultivating tenant under the trustee-owner. the firs.respondent revenue court, by holding so, set aside the orders made in tr.no.24/1988 and t.r.no.36/96 and allowed the appeal filed by the fourth respondent. aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner before this court. 5.the learned counsel for the petitioner has in this writ petition seriously questioned the correctness of the order impugned herein for the following grounds: (i)the appellate authority has erroneously entertained at the appellate stage the new plea regarding fraud played on the lower authority; (ii)the appellate authority has set aside the order made in tr.24/1988 without any challenge made against the correctness of the same; (iii)the appellate authority has erroneously recognised the tenancy right in favour of the fourth respondent; (iv)the appellate authority has no right in holding that the petitioner has not established her case before the tahsildar and the order in tr.no.24/1988 is not binding on the parties; and (v)the appellate authority was not right in believing the claim of the fourth respondent on the basis of the document produced on his side. 6.during the pendency of the writ petition, the fourth respondent died and his legal heirs were brought on record. the learned counsel for the contesting respondents reiterated the same stand as raised before the appellate authority and defended the order of the appellate authority. 7.heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 8.the facts made available herein would reveal that tr.no.24/1988 was decided in favour of the petitioner herein by the second respondent mainly on the basis of the statement of abraham as rw1 and on the basis of lease-cum- release deed of tenancy executed by abraham dated 4.7.1988 in favour of the petitioner. the perusal of the order enclosed at pages 7 and 8 of the typed set filed along with this writ petition, would not reveal any other document adduced on the side of the petitioner herein in tr.24/1998. rw1 as abraham deposed before the tahsildar that he released the tenancy in favour of the petitioner in respect of 1.22 acres and he had not been cultivating the same, due to his ill-health and his name may be removed from the tenancy records and the petitioner's name may be registered in the same. accordingly, tr.no.24/1988 was ordered by effecting mutation in favour of the petitioner herein. the order further says that the trustee of the third respondent trust by name m.s.lakshmanan has given his consent for removing the name of abraham and registering the name of regina jeyapaul as cultivating tenant. whereas, the list of witnesses appended to the order does not mention the name of m.s.lakshmanan as one of the persons deposed before the tahsildar in tr.no.24/1988. though the copy of the lease deed purported to be executed between the petitioner herein and m.s.lakshman representing the third respondent trust/owner is enclosed at page 5 of the typed set filed herein, the same was not produced before the tahsildar and not referred to in the order passed by the tahsildar in tr.no.24/1988. the reading of the order dated 14.9.1988 of the second respondent tahsildar clearly shows the inclusion of the petitioner's name as cultivating tenant in the cultivating records is after removal of the name of abraham which was originally recorded in the revenue records. the order was not challenged by way of appeal either by abraham or by third respondent owner. 9.whereas, abraham initiated separate proceedings in tr.no.36/1996 in respect of 1.22 acres. it is explained in the petition that abraham inherited the tenancy right from one gnanam and the third respondent trust already attorned and accepted the right of tenancy and entered into lease agreement on 15.9.1983 in respect of the petition mentioned property with the fourth respondent. the fourth respondent abraham filed the xerox copy of the lease agreement dated 15.9.1983 entered into with him by the third respondent and xerox copy of the order made in r.p.no.11/1985 relating to ayinees. it is true that the fourth respondent, except denying the averments raised in tr.no.24/1988, has not raised any plea of denial regarding his so called presence before the tahsildar in tr.no.24/1988. but, according to him, he was not aware of the proceedings and that is why he did not mention about the same in his application in tr.36/96. 10.it is noteworthy to mention at this juncture that the petitioner herein was impleaded in tr.no.36/96 at the instance of the third respondent trust cum-owner, as one of the parties to the same. the second respondent tahsildar disagreed with his case and dismissed his petition in tr.36/96. it is true that only thereafter the fourth respondent in his appeal before the firs.respondent revenue court raised the plea that he did not appear before the tahsildar in tr.24/1988. though it was raised at appellate stage, the appellate authority thought it fit to consider, discuss and decide the same in the manner known to law in favour of the fourth respondent and rendered the finding as if the plea regarding his appearance before the tahsildar was doubtful. while doing so, he has chosen to set aside the order made in tr.24/1988 and also set aside the order made in tr.36/96 and remove the name of the petitioner and register the name of the fourth respondent as cultivating tenant in the tenancy records. 11.though serious contention was raised on the side of the petitioner, for setting aside the order made in tr.no.36/1996 in the appeal filed against the order made in tr.no.24/1998, without the relief being sought for, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following judgments of this court for the legal proposition that entries made in record by record of tenancy tahsildar behind back of real owner and person interested by deceitful means renders entries nullity and non est: (i)1997 (iii) ctc739(pichai ammal v. the district revenue officer, trichy and others.and (ii)1999 (i) ctc566(jayarama naidu v. meenakshi ammal and another).here is the case wherein the appearance of the petitioner before the tahsildar is held to be doubtful, as such, the entries made in the record become nullity and non est and the question of seeking any declaration against the validity of the same does not arise in such case. 12.further, it is already referred to that the name of the petitioner was originally entered in the tenancy records as cultivating tenant and the order passed in tr.no.36/1996 was only to remove the name of the petitioner and register the name of the fourth respondent as cultivating tenant in the tenancy records. the same relief is sought for herein and by virtue of the impugned order passed, the original entry made therein is restored and this court finds no serious error or infirmity in such order passed by the revenue authority, warranting interference by this court. 13.thus, for the discussion held above, the petitioner is dis-entitled to get any relief in this petition. 14.in the result, the writ petition is dismissed. no costs. consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. rk index:yes/no internet:yes/no 29.04.2014 to 1.the revenue divisional officer special deputy collector (revenue court) no.1, kamarajar 1st street, chokkikulam, madurai-2. 2.the tahsildar, under the record of tenancy act (madurai north) madurai taluk office, collectorate complex, madurai. k.b.k.vasuki, j. rk w.p (md.no.1849 of 2010 29-04-2014 
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 29.04.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.(Md.No.1849 of 2010 and M.P.(Md.No.1 of 2010 Regina Jeyapaul .Petitioner versus 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court) NO.1, Kamarajar 1st Street, Chokkikulam, Madurai-2.

2.The Tahsildar, Under the record of Tenancy Act (Madurai North) Madurai Taluk Office, Collectorate Complex, Madurai.

3.The Trustee, Sooraveli Subbaier Trust, 1-13, Shanthi Sodan Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai 625 016.

4.Abraham (died) 5.A.Seela (R5 substituted as legal heir of the deceased 4th respondent vide order of this court dated 13.6.2012 in MP.1/2012) 6.A.S.Solomon Thangaraj 7.A.Simpson 8.A.Simson Selvaraj 9.A.Selvam 10.A.Maniarasu 11.A.Ezhilarasu 12.A.Amos (R6 to R12 impleaded vide order of this court dated 12.6.2012 made in MP.1/2012) .Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the fiRs.respondent in Proceedings AP22009 dated 18.12.2009 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

!For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari ^For Respondents : Mr.G.Muthukannan, GA -R1 & R2 Mr.T.R.Jeyapalan -R3 R4 (died) Mr.K.R.Laxman -R5 Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu -R6 to R12 :ORDER

The writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the fiRs.respondent dated 18.12.2009 in AP.No.2/2009.

2.The facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows: The lands in S.Nos.174, 173/1B measuring 2 acres and 44 cents in Thallakulam Village, Madurai North belong to Sooraveli Subbaier Trust.

Originally, one Gnanam @ Gnanambal W/o.Vedamuthu, who is none else than the aunt of the fourth respondent herein by name Abraham, was in possession and enjoyment of the same as cultivating tenant.

After her death, the tenancy devolved upon two persons, one among whom is Abraham, fourth respondent herein.

The fourth respondent also obtained lease agreement in respect of the same property and had been cultivating the same.

While so, the petitioner herein by name Regina Jeyapaul claiming herself as cultivating tenant, approached the second respondent Tahsildar under the record of Tenancy Act in T.R.No.24/1988 for recognising her as cultivating tenant in respect of the lands in question.

The proceedings ended in favour of the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein was accepted as tenant in respect of the property.

3.While so, the fourth respondent Abraham since deceased filed another application in TR.No.36/1996 for registering his name as cultivating tenant.

The petition was originally filed against the third respondent Trust and the petitioner was at the instance of the third respondent impleaded as one of the respondents in the proceedings initiated by Abraham.

It is the contention raised by the fourth respondent Abraham in TR.No.36/1996 that he was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner herein and he came to know about the same only during enquiry in TR.No.36/1996 and the order was passed, without any notice and without any opportunity of his being heard.

The same was contested by both the petitioner herein and the third respondent Trust-cum-owner.

The third respondent herein/owner in TR.No.36/96 sailed with the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein as the second respondent therein denied any tenancy agreement executed by the third respondent trust in favour of the fourth respondent Abraham as the petitioner therein.

According to the petitioner herein as the second respondent therein, the right vested with the fourth respondent was already transferred in her favour and Abraham appeared in person before the Tahsildar in TR.No.24/1988 and admitted about the transfer of tenancy and admitted his non possession and possession of the petitioner herein as cultivating tenant.

On the basis of such admission, TR.No.24/1988 was ordered by recognising the petitioner herein as cultivating tenant and by effecting mutation.

The third respondent/owner of the lands supported the case of the petitioner herein in TR.No.36/1996.

The second respondent Tahsildar by accepting the petitioner's case and by disbelieving the fourth respondent's version, dismissed the application in TR.No.36/1996.

4.Aggrieved against the same, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal in AP.2/2009 before the Appellate Authority, Revenue Court of Madurai.

The Trust-cum-owner did not choose to contest the matter before the appellate authority.

The petitioner as well as the fourth respondent herein would reiterate the same stand as raised before the Tahsildar in TR.No.36/1996.

The fourth respondent before the Appellate Authority raised an additional stand that he did not appear in person before the Tahsildar and he was impersonated before the Tahsildar for obtaining order in TR.No.24/1988.

The fiRs.respondent Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court).Madurai accepted the fourth respondent's plea and was of the view that the order in TR.No.24/88 was obtained without verifying the identity of the fourth respondent as one Abraham and the copy of the order made in TR.24/98 was received directly from the party without bringing her into witness box and the same deprived the fourth respondent herein from cross examining the witness and the same has no binding effect.

The fiRs.respondent Revenue Court has also on the basis of the available records, arrived at the conclusion that one Gnanam was the original cultivating tenant and after her death, it devolved on her legal heirs by names Ayinees and fourth respondent Abraham and the property was shown to be belonging to the fourth respondent in TR.14/1983 and CRP.11/85/G3 relating to the lands in possession of Ayinees and no record was produced to show that the petitioner herein was a cultivating tenant under the trustee-owner.

The fiRs.respondent Revenue Court, by holding so, set aside the orders made in TR.No.24/1988 and T.R.No.36/96 and allowed the appeal filed by the fourth respondent.

Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner before this court.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has in this writ petition seriously questioned the correctness of the order impugned herein for the following grounds: (i)the Appellate Authority has erroneously entertained at the appellate stage the new plea regarding fraud played on the lower authority; (ii)the Appellate Authority has set aside the order made in TR.24/1988 without any challenge made against the correctness of the same; (iii)the Appellate Authority has erroneously recognised the tenancy right in favour of the fourth respondent; (iv)the appellate authority has no right in holding that the petitioner has not established her case before the Tahsildar and the order in TR.No.24/1988 is not binding on the parties; and (v)the Appellate Authority was not right in believing the claim of the fourth respondent on the basis of the document produced on his side.

6.During the pendency of the writ petition, the fourth respondent died and his legal heirs were brought on record.

The learned counsel for the contesting respondents reiterated the same stand as raised before the Appellate Authority and defended the order of the Appellate Authority.

7.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.

8.The facts made available herein would reveal that TR.No.24/1988 was decided in favour of the petitioner herein by the second respondent mainly on the basis of the statement of Abraham as RW1 and on the basis of lease-cum- release deed of tenancy executed by Abraham dated 4.7.1988 in favour of the petitioner.

The perusal of the order enclosed at pages 7 and 8 of the typed set filed along with this writ petition, would not reveal any other document adduced on the side of the petitioner herein in TR.24/1998.

RW1 as Abraham deposed before the Tahsildar that he released the tenancy in favour of the petitioner in respect of 1.22 acres and he had not been cultivating the same, due to his ill-health and his name may be removed from the tenancy records and the petitioner's name may be registered in the same.

Accordingly, TR.No.24/1988 was ordered by effecting mutation in favour of the petitioner herein.

The order further says that the trustee of the third respondent Trust by name M.S.Lakshmanan has given his consent for removing the name of Abraham and registering the name of Regina Jeyapaul as cultivating tenant.

Whereas, the list of witnesses appended to the order does not mention the name of M.S.Lakshmanan as one of the persons deposed before the Tahsildar in TR.No.24/1988.

Though the copy of the lease deed purported to be executed between the petitioner herein and M.S.Lakshman representing the third respondent trust/owner is enclosed at page 5 of the typed set filed herein, the same was not produced before the Tahsildar and not referred to in the order passed by the Tahsildar in TR.No.24/1988.

The reading of the order dated 14.9.1988 of the second respondent Tahsildar clearly shows the inclusion of the petitioner's name as cultivating tenant in the cultivating records is after removal of the name of Abraham which was originally recorded in the Revenue records.

The order was not challenged by way of appeal either by Abraham or by third respondent owner.

9.Whereas, Abraham initiated separate proceedings in TR.No.36/1996 in respect of 1.22 acres.

It is explained in the petition that Abraham inherited the tenancy right from one Gnanam and the third respondent trust already attorned and accepted the right of tenancy and entered into lease agreement on 15.9.1983 in respect of the petition mentioned property with the fourth respondent.

The fourth respondent Abraham filed the xerox copy of the lease agreement dated 15.9.1983 entered into with him by the third respondent and xerox copy of the order made in R.P.No.11/1985 relating to Ayinees.

It is true that the fourth respondent, except denying the averments raised in TR.No.24/1988, has not raised any plea of denial regarding his so called presence before the Tahsildar in TR.No.24/1988.

But, according to him, he was not aware of the proceedings and that is why he did not mention about the same in his application in TR.36/96.

10.It is noteworthy to mention at this juncture that the petitioner herein was impleaded in TR.No.36/96 at the instance of the third respondent trust cum-owner, as one of the parties to the same.

The second respondent Tahsildar disagreed with his case and dismissed his petition in TR.36/96.

It is true that only thereafter the fourth respondent in his appeal before the fiRs.respondent Revenue Court raised the plea that he did not appear before the Tahsildar in TR.24/1988.

Though it was raised at appellate stage, the Appellate Authority thought it fit to consider, discuss and decide the same in the manner known to law in favour of the fourth respondent and rendered the finding as if the plea regarding his appearance before the Tahsildar was doubtful.

While doing so, he has chosen to set aside the order made in TR.24/1988 and also set aside the order made in TR.36/96 and remove the name of the petitioner and register the name of the fourth respondent as cultivating tenant in the tenancy records.

11.Though serious contention was raised on the side of the petitioner, for setting aside the order made in TR.No.36/1996 in the appeal filed against the order made in TR.No.24/1998, without the relief being sought for, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following judgments of this court for the legal proposition that entries made in record by Record of Tenancy Tahsildar behind back of real owner and person interested by deceitful means renders entries nullity and non est: (i)1997 (III) CTC739(Pichai Ammal v.

The District Revenue Officer, Trichy and otheRs.and (ii)1999 (I) CTC566(Jayarama Naidu v.

Meenakshi Ammal and another).Here is the case wherein the appearance of the petitioner before the Tahsildar is held to be doubtful, as such, the entries made in the record become nullity and non est and the question of seeking any declaration against the validity of the same does not arise in such case.

12.Further, it is already referred to that the name of the petitioner was originally entered in the tenancy records as cultivating tenant and the order passed in TR.No.36/1996 was only to remove the name of the petitioner and register the name of the fourth respondent as cultivating tenant in the tenancy records.

The same relief is sought for herein and by virtue of the impugned order passed, the original entry made therein is restored and this Court finds no serious error or infirmity in such order passed by the Revenue authority, warranting interference by this Court.

13.Thus, for the discussion held above, the petitioner is dis-entitled to get any relief in this petition.

14.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

No costs.

Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

rk Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No 29.04.2014 To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court) NO.1, Kamarajar 1st Street, Chokkikulam, Madurai-2.

2.The Tahsildar, Under the record of Tenancy Act (Madurai North) Madurai Taluk Office, Collectorate Complex, Madurai.

K.B.K.VASUKI, J.

rk W.P (Md.No.1849 of 2010 29-04-2014