Marappa Gounder vs 1. The District Revenue Officer, Periyar District at Erode, 2. The Special Duputy collector, (Revenue), Salem, N.S. Rajagopal

S. Jagadeesan, J.—The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated

31.1.1995, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 10.1.1994, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the issue of patta under the

Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act (Act 40 of 1971) (hereinafter called ''the said Act''). The petitioners,

claiming to be poor agriculturists and agricultural labourers, sought for Kudiyiruppu patta in Survey No. 37 of Ariyagoundanur Village, Bhavani

Taluk, belonging to the third respondent, herein u/s 3 of the said Act. Originally the petitioners were granted patta by the second respondent in his

proceedings dated 30.11.1973. As against the said order of the second respondent, the third respondent filed writ petition W.P.6856/85 before

this Court. This Court by order dated 10.7.85 set aside the order of the second respondent, granting kudiyiruppu patta in favour of the petitioners

and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry, by giving an opportunity to the third respondent to state his objections. The third respondent/filed his

objections on 18.7.1985 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam by his

order dated 4.2.1986 once again granted kudiyiruppu patta in favour of the petitioners. The third respondent preferred an appeal before the first

respondent. The first respondent, after hearing both the parties, by his order dated 30.6.86 once again remanded the matter to the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam. Thereafter the matter was dealt with by the second respondent herein. The second respondent in his

proceedings dated 10.1.94 had rejected the claim of the petitioners. As against the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the first

respondent, who by his proceedings dated 31.1.95 has confirmed the order of the second respondent and rejected the appeal filed by the

petitioners. As against the same the present writ petition has been filed.

Mr. Manoharan, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioners, being agriculturists and agricultural labourers, are entitled

for the kudiyiruppu patta as per the said Act. Hence the rejection of their claim by the respondents 1 and 2 is contrary to the provisions of the said

Act. The learned counsel placed much reliance on the definition of ''agricultural labourer'' and claimed that the petitioners, being agricultural

labourers, are entitled to the kidiyiruppu patta. It is worthwhile to refer the definition, which is as follows:-

Definitions.-

(1) ""agricultural labourer'' means a person whose principal means of livelihood is the income he gets as wages for his manual labour on agricultural

land, but does not include a plantation labourer.

As the petitioners are earning their livelihood only by way of wages for their manual labour on agricultural land, it is contended that they are entitled

for the kudiyiruppu patta.

I am unable to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In order to consider the claim of the petitioners, this

Court has to consider the objects and reasons of the said Act. The objects and reasons of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971 is to confer ownership on

the occupants of kudiyiruppu. The legislation was passed, conferring such ownership rights on the occupants of kudiyiruppu, thus, assuring right of

ownership in the residential premises of the agricultural population as a permanent measure. In fact, this Act is in continuation of the earlier Act viz.,

Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act (Act 38 of 1961) which prevented the landlord from evicting the

agriculturists or agricultural labourers from the land.

If the concept of the said Act is looked into, then the intention of the Legislature is to confer the occupancy right of the agricultural labourer who

is employed as an agricultural labourer in that particular land of the landlord.

So far as the ''agriculturist'' is concerned, the intention of the Legislature may have to be considered with regard to the definition of the term

''tenant'' as per sub-section (11) of Section 2 and Section 3 of the said Act which refers to the occupant who has to become the owner.

Section 3 of the said Act is as follows:

Occupant of kudiyiruppu to become owner:-

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act any agriculturist or agricultural labourer who was occupying any kudiyiruppu on the 19th June, 1971,

either as tenant or as licensee shall, with effect from the date of the commencement of this Act, be the owner of such kudiyiruppu and such

kudiyiruppu shall vest in him absolutely free from alt encumbrances.

(2) Where, in the case of an occupant of kudiyiruppu in whom such kudiyiruppu rests under sub Section (1) the superstructure belongs to any

person other than such occupant, such superstructure shall also, with effect from the date of the commencement of this Act, vest in such occupant

absolutely free from all encumbrances.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to confer the right of ownership of kudiyiruppu on any agriculturist or agricultural labourer if he

already owns a dwelling house or hut or a house-site, within a distance of one kilometer from the kudiyiruppu referred to in sub-section (1)

Provided that the site on which the dwelling house or hut is erected or the house site concerned is more than three cents in extent.

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 specifies that the agriculturist or agricultural labourer who was occupying any kudiyiruppu, either as tenant or as

licensee, shall be the owner of such kudiyiruppu. The relevant date of their occupation is 19.6.1971. Apart from the date of occupation, the person

who claims kudiyiruppu patta has to establish that he is occupying the kudiyiruppu either as ''tenant'' or as a ''licensee''.

The word ''licensee'' will have the relevance in cases where the agricultural labourer is employed by the owner of the agricultural land for the

agricultural purposes, which means he will be an agricultural labourer of that particular land.

The word ''tenant'' had been defined in sub-section (11) of section 2 which is as follows:

tenant"" means any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allowed by another to enjoy the land of the

latter under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes his heirs and legal representatives.

This definition may attract those who are in occupation of the land as agriculturist in another''s land by paying rent.

In the case on hand, the petitioners have failed to sate as to whether they are inoccupation of the land over which they claimed the kudiyiruppu

patta as agriculturist, being the tenants by paying rent or as licensees under the land owners. In the absence of such specific plea, definitely the

petitioners'' claim does not fall within the ambit of the said Act.

The second respondent in his impugned order has categorically stated that none of the petitioners had established their claim for the issue of

patta and further some of the petitioners are dead and others are having land either in their wives'' name or children''s name and as such they

cannot be considered to be persons entitled for the kudiyiruppu patta under the category of ''agriculturist'' or ''agricultural'' labourer''.

This order had been confirmed by the appellate authority, the first respondent herein.

The findings of the second respondent being purely question of fact, rightly, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise any objection on

the said finding. His only claim is that the appellate authority has not considered the facts elaborately, except in a concise manner had agreed with

the finding of the second respondent.

This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it could be seen that the first respondent, the appellate authority, had

concurred with the finding of the second respondent, the original authority. When the appellate authority on a question of fact, accept the finding of

the original authority, there is no need for the appellate authority, to elaborately repeat the reasoning given by the original authority and then reject

the appeal. When the learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any infirmity or illegality in the order of the original authority, the non-

discussion on the part of the appellate authority in detail cannot be a ground for interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Virtually the petitioners seem to have encroached upon the property of the third respondent and claiming

rights. Hence there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the third

respondent. Consequently W.M.P. 7016/95 is closed.