Angu alias Angammal vs The Record Officer and Additional Tahsildar, Thanjavur, The Appellate Authority (R.T.R.) and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, The Revisional Authority and the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur and P. Venkatachalam

Swamikkanun, J.—The definition of ''cultivating tenant'' as per S.2 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1962 is that

one should contribute his physical labour, such ac ploughing sewing the seeds, taking away the weeds and also harvesting the products when the

crop is ready for harvest. Unless a person proves that he so physically applies the body for the purpose of cultivating the land, he cannot go

anywhere near the definition of S.2 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants'' Protection Act, 1962. S.2 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating

Tenants Protection Act 1962 reads as follows:�

2(b)�""Cultivation"" means the use of lands for the purpose of agriculture or horticulture.

In the instant case, it is common ground that the fourth respondent herein is a permanent employee of the Government as a teacher of a

Government institution. Never it can be ever contemplated that a Government servant, who is in service to go to the field work in the field thereby

transferring himself as a ''cultivating tenant'' as per the Act, in addition to the Government job which says that he is a Government Servant all the

twenty four hours. Whoever he is, he is to be governed by the Government servants Conduct Rules and other enactments including the Corruption

Act. Under the circumstances, he never comes Under the purview of S.2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1962. As such,

the provisions of O.22, R.6 of the C.P.C., cannot go to his help, especially when the petitioner died on 7.7.1980 and he wants to step into the

shoes. Order has been produced belatedly but that does not in any way stand in the way of the fourth respondent herein to put forth his argument.

Order was reversed in May, 1980, and pronounced in January, 1981. It is certainly a delay which is abnormal, which has not been explained on

behalf of the Government, namely, the first three respondents in this writ petition. This writ petition has necessarily to be allowed because fourth

respondent has not proved himself to be a ''cultivating tenant'' nor he has applied for himself being included as a ''cultivating tenant'' in the necessary

proceedings, and as such that capacity cannot be obtained by the fourth respondent herein merely because the appellate authority as well as the

revisional authority has recognised him as the legal heir of the deceased. The entire proceedings, so far as fourth respondent herein is concerned,

cannot be sustained in law. The revisional authority''s order in reversing the order of the appellate authority or confirming the order of the Record

Officer, viz., the original authority, can under no stretch of imagination be considered as a valid order, and as such the same requires to be set

aside. The order of the revisional authority is hereby set aside. The fourth respondent herein is not a cultivating tenant as per the definition of S.2

(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1962. An order is passed accordingly allowing this writ petition. Under the

circumstances, there is no order as to costs.