V.Gopal (Deceased), Vs The District Revenue Officer

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to orders dated 29.06.2018 passed in Ne.Mo.No.G4/9194/2017 on the file of the District Revenue Officer,

¶22

1/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.27748 of 2019 Vellore, 1st respondent herein confirming the order dated 16.2.2017 passed in TRAP No.1/2014 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Cuddalore, 2nd respondent herein confirming the order dated 24.7.2013 in D.S.R.No.1/2013 on the file of Tahsildar and Land Record Officer, Ambur, 3rd respondent herein and quash the same and subsequently record the tenancy right of the petitioner in respect of agricultural lands in Survey No.576, 578/2 and 578/3 to an extent of 1.40.50 Hectare of lands in Agaramcheri Village, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District

¶25

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sugumaran For Respondents For R1 to 3 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.Hussain Nissan

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed

¶28

by the third respondent thereby rejecting the request made by the first petitioner to register his name as cultivating tenant and the same was confirmed by the first respondent and the second respondent.

¶29

2 . The land comprised in survey No.576 to an extent of 0.41.5 hectares survey No.578 to an extent of 0.47.0 hectares and survey no.578/3 to an extent of 0.52.0 hectares, in total 1.40.5 hectares of 2/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.27748 of 2019 agricultural land originally belonged to one, Margabandu Iyer. During his

¶32

life time, the first petitioner’s father entered into lease agreement in respect of the said lands for agricultural purpose thereby he became a cultivating tenant. After the lifetime of the said Margabandu Iyer and his wife, their daughters derived title over the property and developed the same. They also had executed lease deed in favour of the first petitioner in the year 1998. While being so, the legal heirs of the said Margabandu Iyer had executed a power of attorney in favour of one, Narayana Moorthy to deal with the property. He in turn executed sale deed in favour of one, Suresh Kumar Jain. Thereafter, he had executed sale deed in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of the subject land. After purchasing the said land, the fourth respondent attempted to take possession of the subject property. Thereafter, the first petitioner filed application before the third respondent to record the tenants rights as contemplated under Section 3 of the Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. It was rejected and the same was confirmed by the second respondent. Once again, the petitioner preferred revision before the first respondent and the same was rejected confirming the order passed by the third respondent. The first petitioner died and his legal heirs have been substituted as the other petitioners in the writ 3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.27748 of 2019

¶35

petition.

¶36

3 . On perusal of the counter filed by the first respondent and on submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, it is revealed that the fourth respondent had purchased the subject property by way of registered sale deed dated 18.05.2007 registered vide document No.1488 of 2007. Thereafter, he had taken possession of the subject land and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He was also issued patta. There is no quarrel in respect of the title over the property. The deceased first petitioner submitted representation before the third respondent to register his name as cultivating tenant for the subject land in the year 2013. However, there was no document to prove that the deceased petitioner was the cultivating tenant in respect of the subject land. That apart, the person who applied for registration as cultivating tenant died. The fourth respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property as per the sale deed. Further, the request made by the deceased first petitioner was considered by the statutory body and rejected. Therefore, in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is required to be found whether the statutory authorities have considered the matter and 4/6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.27748 of 2019 evidence on record in accordance with the provisions of law and whether

¶39

they have applied their mind in respect of the material evidences that have been produced by the parties. When the statutory authorities have approached the matter properly and appreciated the evidence on record and considered the issues before them in a proper perspective, interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not called for.

¶40

4 . Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

18.09.2025 Neutral citation: Yes/No (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶42

5/6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.27748 of 2019

¶45

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶46

lok