P. Ayyanar vs Mrs. Rathinam and Others

K.A. Swami, C.J.—At the stage of admission, respondents are notified. Accordingly. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel has put in

appearance for the 1st respondent. The other respondents are the official respondents. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and

heard for final disposal.

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3.11.95 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8888 of 1985. The learned single Judge

has allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Tahsildar Record Officer, Appellate Authority and also the revisions authority

and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar-Record Officer, Madurai for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The order passed by the learned

single Judge, being short one, we extract the same as hereunder:

Arguments of the learned Advocates for the writ petitioner together with the arguments of the learned Advocate for the respondents were heard.

The point that arises for consideration is whether there are valid grounds to allow the writ petition or not?

At the very outset I would like to state that the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner did not argue the matter on merits but requested this Court

to remand the matter to the Court below, i.e. the 1st respondent herein for fresh disposal in accordance with law, as the 1st respondent did not

examine the materials available on record, particularly with regard to the entries in adangals which are paramount documents. I have gone through

the materials available on record and also the order passed by the 1st 2nd and 3rd respondent. Having considered entire materials available on

record, I am of the clear opinion that it is proper to remand the matter to the Court below i.e., the 1st respondent herein for fresh disposal in

accordance with law as it will meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st

respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both sides to let in evidence both oral and documentary but in

the circumstances without costs.

Hence aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the 4th respondent in the writ petition has come up in appeal.

The appellant herein filed an application before the Tahsildar - Record Officer, Madurai to record him as a cultivating tenant, in respect of the

lands in question comprised in S.No. 51/5 (3.42 acres) of Pathinettangudi Village, in the tenancy records. The Tahsildar, held an enquiry, afforded

an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties and ultimately

rejected the application filed by the 4th respondent- the appellant herein, by his order dated.14.10.81 in TR.No. 19/81. The Tahsildar-Record

Officer, was of the view that the appellant failed to prove that he was a cultivating tenant of the land in question.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant herein preferred AP.No.24 of 1981 before the Appellate Authority, who was the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Madurai. We may point out here that the appeal lies both on facts and on law and the Appellate Authority is entitled to

appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and come to his own conclusion. Accordingly, the appellate Authority framed the following points

for determination:-

(1) Whether the respondents as the owners of the suit land are in possession of it and doing personal cultivation?

(2) Whether the appellant holds a right of tenancy in respect of the suit land at least by way of implied or oral agreement with the landlord

(Respondents)?

and considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties and ultimately held as follows:

In the light of the discussions above, this court holds that the respondents failed to establish that they have been in physical possession of the suit

land and they have been doing personal cultivation on it. This court also holds that the lower court has brushed aside the valid and material

evidence in favour of the appellant for flimsy reasons. This court holds that the appellant herein has satisfactorily established that he has been in

physical possession and enjoyment of the suit land and that he is cultivating it by virtue of oral and implied agreement of tenancy with the

respondents. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. This court also directs that the name of the appellant be registered as a cultivating tenancy in

respect of the suit land.

Therefore, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the original land owner preferred a revision under Revision Petition No. 18 of 1983 before the

District Revenue Officer, Madurai. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, after adverting to the proceedings that had gone on before the

Tahsildar-Record Officer, the original authority and also the Appellate Authority, and also the Civil suit in O.S.No. 8/78 and Civil Appeal in

A.S.No. 206 of 1978, came to the conclusion that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai had gone into the case in detail and had held that the

respondent therein had satisfactorily established that he had been in physical possession and enjoyment of the land in question, and accordingly,

dismissed the revision petition, by the order dt. 17.6.85.

The learned Single Judge has not gone into the correctness of the findings recorded by the appellate authority. The remand has been made only

on the ground that it would be just and proper to remand the matter to the authorities below.

The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be equated to that of the appellate jurisdiction. In a petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution, the court is required to find out whether the statutory authorities have considered the matter and the evidence on

record, in accordance with the provisions of law and whether they have applied their mind to the material evidence that has been produced by the

parties, having a bearing on the points involved in the case. Of course in an extraordinary case, where this Court finds that the approach itself is

perverse and opposed to all notions of reason and logic, this court can interfere with the findings of fact. But ordinarily, when the statutory

authorities have approached the matter properly appreciated the evidence on record, and have considered the issues before them in the proper

perspective interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for.

The whole object of this jurisdiction is to ensure that the statutory authorities keep themselves within their bounds and decide equity the matters

in accordance with law, justice and that being the position, in a case like this, the court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,

is required to see whether the statutory authorities have exercised their jurisdiction properly and considered the case in accordance with, governing

the subject matter. Looked from that point of view, we find it very difficult to agree with the learned single Judge, because, first of all, the order

does not contain any reason. Secondly, the order passed by the first appellate authority and the revisional authority cannot be held to suffer from

any illegality or material irregularity, affecting the substantive rights of the parties.

We have been taken through the orders of the Tahsildar- Record Officer, Appellate Authority and also the revisional authority. There is no

doubt that the revisional authority does not refer to all the facts of the case but it does reappreciate the evidence on record and agrees with the

findings recorded by the Appellate Authority.

Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, provides for revision against the order of the Appellate

Authority and it reads thus:

Revision: The District Collector or such officer as may be specified by the Government in this behalf may of his own motion or on the

application of a party call for and examine the record of any record officer or appellate authority within his jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding

under this Act and pass such orders as he may think fit:

Provided that the District Collector or the said officer shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless he has been given a reasonable

opportunity of being heard.

Thus the aforesaid provision of revision cannot be considered to be the one giving powers to reappreciate the evidence on record. The said

provision only says that the revisional authority may pass such orders as he may think fit.

There is a distinction and it is well known, between appeal and revision. We do not consider it necessary to deal with it in great detail, as

distinction is well established by the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court. Normally, when the revisional authority finds that

the approach of the Appellate Authority is proper and it has considered all the evidence on record, it is not expected to go into the details and give

its own reasons, if it agrees with the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. This is what that has been done by the revisional authority in the

instant case. It is not as if the revisional authority has simply dismissed the revision on the ground that the findings recorded by the Appellate

Authority are findings which are based on the evidence on record and as such interference is not warranted. The revisional authority has gone into

the entire proceedings of the first authority and the Appellate Authority has specifically referred to the findings recorded by the first appellate

authority. Thereafter, it has concluded that there is no ground to interfere with such findings. What is more, the revisional authority has also

adverted to the findings recorded by the civil court in O.S.No.8 of 1978 and in A.S.No.206 of 1978, in which it has been held by the civil court

that the first respondent herein had failed to prove that he was in possession of the land in question and cultivated the same personally. To the suit

and appeal, the appellant herein was a party and had put up his claim that he was cultivating the land in question as a tenant, which had been

accepted by the civil court and in that background, the civil court examined the evidence on record and held against the owner of the land. That

finding has also been taken into consideration by the revisional authority and the Appellate Authority.

One more clinching circumstance that has been referred to by the Appellate Authority is that the predecessor in title of the first respondent

therein the owner of the land, addressed a letter to the appellant to execute a lease deed, which had been marked as Ex.A.1 in the case. Unless

there was an agreement of lease, or unless the land owner had agreed to lease out the land and put the appellant in possession of the land to

cultivate it as a tenant, there was no need for the land owner to address a letter to the appellant to execute a lease deed. Thus, the entire evidence

both oral and documentary have been considered by the appellate authority in the proper perspective. Therefore, we are of the view, that the

findings recorded by the Appellate Authority cannot be considered to be perverse and opposed to reason and logic and the law governing the

subject, It is not a case of non-consideration of material evidence on record. Hence, this is a case in which interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution is not warranted.

For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 3.11.1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8888 of

1985 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.