Ramachandran vs The District Revenue Officer and Rajendran

M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first

Respondent pertaining to the impugned order in Sa.ma.3/2006 Aa4 dated 12.3.2008 and quash the same.

The land in Survey No. 154 measuring an extent of 0.33.0 Hectares belongs to Ganga Parameswari Temple as per Sale Deed dated

21.08.1975. The aforesaid Temple is in small portion of the land referred to above and the remaining extent is under cultivation of the

Petitioner/President of Managing Committee of Ganga Parameswari Temple, Pudukkottai District.

The President of the Managing Committee of Ganga Parameswari Temple, Pudukkottai District/Petitioner filed a suit on the file of the learned

Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai in O.S. No. 481 of 1986 praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining one Adhimoolam, F/o

Rajendran who attempted to disturb the Petitioner''s possession. After contest, the suit has been decreed. The Defendant''s claim of Tenancy Right

in the suit has been dismissed by the trial Court by means of its judgment dated 12.10.1990. Subsequently, the Defendant as against the suit O.S.

No. 481 of 1986, filed an Appeal in A.S. No. 52 of 1992 before the Learned Sub Judge, Pudukkottai District. The said Appeal has been

dismissed with costs on 16.6.1994.

When A.S. No. 52 of 1992 has been pending, the said Adhimoolam filed the petition under records of Tenancy Right Act, before Tahsildar,

Pudukkottai, in R.T.R. No. 25 of 1990 and after an enquiry, the same has been dismissed. Later, the said Adhimoolam set up his son viz. second

Respondent to lay claim under Records of Tenancy Right Act, for the same land. The second Respondent''s petition in R.T.R. No. 6 of 1999

before Tahsildar, Pudukkottai has been rightly dismissed. Subsequently, Another Appeal filed before the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue,

Tiruchirappalli was also been dismissed.

The second Respondent has filed a revision before the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer, who allowed the revision petition thereby he

has negatived the earlier orders of Civil Courts and Revenue Courts in R.T.R. No. 6 of 1999 proceedings before the Tahsildar, Pudukkottai. The

second Respondent has not imp leaded the Petitioner and only impleaded one Ayyalraj as the Respondent.

The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order of the first Respondent in in Sa.ma.3/2006 Aa4 dated

12.3.2008 in canceling the Tiruchirappalli Revenue Courts/Special Deputy Collector''s proceedings being cancelled is contrary to law and

probabilities of the case.

The main contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in O.S. No. 481 of 1986 and in A.S. No. 52 of 1992 the father

of the second Respondent namely, Athimoolam has been held as not a tenant of the suit land. When that being the position and added further,

when the second Respondent is a permanent Government servant certainly in law he cannot be said to be a person who cultivates the land by

contributing his physical labor and in short, the Revision Petition has been allowed by the first Respondent with impunity throwing to the winds the

Decree passed by the Civil court in O.S. No. 481 of 1986 and the judgment delivered in A.S. No. 52 of 1992.

Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent that the suit in O.S. No. 481 of 1986 on the file of the learned

Additional District Munsif, Pudukkottai has been filed by the Petitioner only for the relief of bare Injunction and also, the judgment delivered in

A.S. No. 52 of 1992 filed as against O.S. No. 481 of 1986 will not bind the second Respondent in any manner whatsoever.

Proceedings further, the Learned Counsel for the second Respondent advances an argument that due to ill health of the second Respondent''s

father, the second Respondent has been constrained to file the petition before the concerned Tahsildar and as such, no mala fide motive can be

attributed. The specific case projected by the second Respondent is that the disputed land belongs to his forefather Raman and 17 others and that

the first Respondent has passed the impugned order in Sa.ma.3/2006 Aa4 dated 12.3.2008 only after verifying the ''A'' Register of resettlement

period and also other oral evidence of the witnesses and the status of cultivating tenant which has attained finality and the issue being the disputed

question of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction before this Court. Also, as against the impugned order of the first Respondent dated

12.3.2008, only Ayyalraj can challenge the same and it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the order of the first Respondent.

A perusal of the judgment in O.S. No. 481 of 1986 dated 12.10.1990 shows that 1 to 5 issues have been framed in the suit. The third issue is

whether the Defendant namely, Adhimoolam (father of the second Respondent) is a Warem cultivating tenant? Therefore, it cannot be again said

that the writ Petitioner has filed O.S. No. 481 of 6 1986 against the father of the second Respondent seeking only the relief of permanent

injunction. In a suit for permanent injunction whether a person is the cultivating tenant in respect of the suit land cannot be generally gone into

mainly. However, that issue can be gone into by a civil court only incidentally or ancillary Section 16(A) the jurisdiction of civil court is barred to

determine whether the particular individual is a cultivating tenant or not. The trial court in O.S. No. 481 of 1986 in its judgment dated 12.3.2008

has come to the firm conclusion that the writ Petitioner(Plaintiff) has been in enjoyment of the suit property till date and since the Defendant has

failed to establish that he is a cultivating tenant, has granted the relief of permanent injunction. Moreover, the trial court has also come to the

conclusion that the writ Petitioner as Plaintiff without claiming the relief of declaration to the suit property has filed a suit praying for the relief of

permanent injunction which is maintainable in law and accordingly, granted the relief of permanent injunction.

The Defendant viz. Athimoolam in O.S. No. 481 of 1986 on the file of the Trial Court has preferred A.S. No. 51 of 1992 being aggrieved by

the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2008 before the learned Sub Judge, Pudukkottai. Later, the Appeal filed by the second 7 Respondent''s

father has also been dismissed by the first appellate court on 16.6.1994. In the instant case on hand, the First Respondent/District Revenue

Officer, Pudukkottai, while passing the impugned order in Sa.ma.3/2006 Aa4 dated 12.3.2008 has set aside the Trichy Revenue Court/Special

Deputy Collector''s proceedings dated 12.9.2005 and has come to the resultant conclusion that the claim made by the Revision Petitioner/Second

Respondent(in writ petition) is a fair one.

A scrutiny of the impugned order in Sa.ma.3/2006 Aa4 dated 12.3.2008 passed by the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer,

Pudukkottai candidly points out the fact that the said order is bereft of qualitative and quantitative details. By and large when an appropriate

authority passes an order, it must be an reasoned one with necessary discussions thereon. At least there must be an out line of process of reasoning

in the order passed by the concerned authority only then, when that order is challenged before the higher forum, then a higher form or Appellate

Authority as the case may be will have the benefit of testing the said order in threadbare fashion. But in the instant case on hand, the First

Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai District, in the impugned order in Sa.ma.3/2006 Aa4 dated 8 12.3.2008 has observed that ''the

place of worship of the temple and the pathway have been situated in an extent of 0.16 cents which has been accepted by the revision Petitioner

and the balance portion of 0.65 cents only for grant of patta the revision Petitioner has sought the relief under the cultivating Tenants Protection Act

and this request appears to be a fair one''.

Inasmuch as the impugned order dated 12.3.2008 of the first Respondent in Sa.ma.3/2006 Aa4 is not a speaking order with necessary details,

this Court is of the considered view that the order of the First Respondent/District Revenue Officer cannot stand a moment''s scrutiny in the eye of

law and the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the impugned order passed by the first

Respondent to prevent an aberration of justice.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The matter is remanded back to the First

Respondent/District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai who is directed to pass a fresh order on merits dispassionately and also by providing necessary

opportunities to all the parties concerned. The first Respondent is directed to pass a fresh order in any event within a period of four months from

the date of receipt of copy of this order.

While allowing the Writ Petition, it is made clear by this Court that that this Court has not gone into the relevant merits and demerits of the case

between the parties. Liberty is given to the parties to raise all factual and legal pleas before the first Respondent and the first Respondent is

directed to pass order untrammeled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this Writ Petition.