N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.
This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge, made in W.P.No.3896 of 1992 dated 04.08.2000, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the third respondent confirmed by the order of the second and first respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
According to the appellants (hereinafter referred to as petitioners), they are the cultivating tenants under Dandeeswaran Temple and Varadharaja Perumal Temple and they have been cultivating the lands comprised in Survey Nos.250/4, 250/8, 250/17 and 252/2 to an extent of 10.65 cents situate in Sendurai Village, Ariyalur Taluk. When things stand so, the fourth respondent filed a petition in T.R.No.1 of 1986 on the file of the first respondent seeking for an order to initiate legal action against the petitioners herein to remove their rights over the aforesaid lands that they had been holding long ago. The said petition was preferred under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (Act 10 of 69).
3. The case of the fourth respondent before the first respondent was that the properties originally belonged to the Sri Sivandandeeswarar and Varadharaja Perumal Temple situate at Sendurai Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Trichy District. Subsequently, they purchased the property through a sale deed dated 12.12.1985 after obtaining permission from HR & CE Commissioner. The purchase of the property was for raising houses for the Government employees in the said property.
4. It is the further contention of the fourth respondent that the property was left without proper cultivation; the petitioners were giving troubles to the fourth respondent based on the fact that their names were finding place in the tenancy rights. Hence the fourth respondent sought the deletion of the petitioners' name from the tenancy register.
5. The petitioners contested the petition. After enquiry, the first respondent allowed the petition and ordered deletion of the petitioners name from the tenancy rights register.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 27.05.1987, the petitioners filed R.P.No.10 of 1987 on the file of the second respondent who confirmed the order of the first respondent and dismissed the petition. Against the said dismissal order, a revision was preferred before the third respondent in N.M.S.R.D.R.3 of 1989 and the said revision petition was also dismissed on 10.12.1991, upholding the order passed by the first respondent as confirmed by the second respondent. Against the order of the revision passed by the third respondent, W.P.No.3896 of 1992 was filed and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 04.08.2000. Against the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.
7. Heard the learned Senior Counsels for the respective parties and perused the materials available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners names were finding place in the Tenancy Rights Register. The Tenancy Register was also published in the gazette notification dated 13.02.1972 in which the properties were shown as Item Nos.47, 48, 49 and 50. The land owner of the property was shown as Sri Sivandandeeswarar Temple, Sendurai, Sri Varadharaja Perumal Temple, Sendurai. The petitioners names and their ancestors names were shown as the tenants. The above said notification would indisputably prove that the petitioners were let in possession as cultivating tenants and that was the reason why their names found place in the gazette notification dated 13.02.1972 issued by the Special Tahsildar. The said publication was made as per Section 3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act. Hence there is no question with regard to the petitioners' status that they are the cultivating tenants in the said lands.
9. When the fourth respondent purchased the property, there could only be a transfer of ownership of property and the status of the petitioners remain the same as that of cultivating tenants. The fourth respondent contended before the first respondent by filing petition in T.R.No.1 of 1986 that they were given possession of the property by the Devasthanam as per the sale deed and the petitioners were not in possession of the property. In such situation, the burden of proof was cast upon the fourth respondent as per
Sections 101 to
104 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove that the petitioners were dispossessed according to law and subsequently the Devasthanam handed over possession of the land to the fourth respondent. Mere allegation in the petition that the fourth respondent was given possession of the property is not sufficient. There should be substantial evidence to prove the said allegation.
10. It is interesting to note that the fourth respondent did not make the Devasthanam as a party to the petition filed before the first respondent. If the Devasthanam was made as a party, the Devasthanam would have given the details as to whether it delivered actual and physical possession or symbolic possession of the property to the fourth respondent. Hence, the petition filed by the first respondent before the second respondent is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
11. During the enquiry before the first respondent, two court witnesses were examined, namely Temple Executive Officer (C.W.1) and Village Administrative Officer (C.W.2). The important portions of the evidence of C.W.1 is extracted as follows:-
"All the lands belonged to the temple. These had been given only for lease. To the lessees of the temple-lands, lease-deeds have been executed. All the aforesaid lands are punja lands. All the aforesaid lands could be cultivated only if there is rainfall. To all the lessees, the lease is similar. The lessees had been remitting Rs.30/- per annum for one acre of land from 1389 fasli onwards. But each one of them had remitted in different way. For a few of them, there is arrears since 1384....If there is arrear, action would be initiated through Revenue Court....In the lands belonging to Sivandandeeswarar and Varadharaja Perumal Temples, there was no direct cultivation. Out of the 16 respondents mentioned in the petition, except 1 and 2, the others had been cultivating these lands through others by keeping the right of lease with them....When I took up office as the Executive Officer of the temple, that respondents 3 to 16 are lessees is found in T.C.P. If there was arrear in the temple lease, to remove him, action ought to have been initiated....When the sale was made, in P.15 (letter of the Executive Officer, Sendurai Temple) while recommendation was made to the Commissioner of the Religious Endowment Department, Chennai. It was mentioned therein that the lessees have been cultivating the land. It was also mentioned there as to who else were in enjoyment of their rights. No order has been received from the Commissioner to evict the lessees...We have not given any notice to the lessees to vacate, informing them that we are going to make a sale of the temple-lands was not informed to them directly. We have not taken any action to evict, any of the respondents. We did not evict them...During the period when P.5 had given permission and during the period of P.6, the suit-land was not in the possession of the temple. During the period of sale, these lands were not with the temple. These were with the respondent. That is why, it has been stated that the responsibility of taking possession of the land by the federation has been mentioned as that of ours...As per the records in my office, there is arrear in lease against the respondents even during this year also...The petitioners had not approached us and asked us to evict the lessees....In P.15, it has been recommended that the possession of these lands should be taken by the aforesaid persons at their own risk...As per the two sale-deed documents, it is seen that possession has been transferred as per the documents."
12. The important portions of the evidence of the Village Administrative Officer (C.W.2) are as follows:
"In the aforesaid lands, in 1395,gingely, kambu, maize, ragi were cultivated. In 1396, the aforesaid lands were left fallow. ...In S.No.250/4, there are two thatched houses and planted coconut seedlings. In the four survey Nos, there are separate fences. There is one hand-pump in S.No.250/4 land. This is in the lands that were in the enjoyment of Ramadas and Ramalingam (P4 and P5). For these lands, there is no tax-arrears.... For 250/4, 250/8, there are individual boundaries showing separate enjoyments. In 1395 fasli, Marudhanayagam and party had done cultivation. At 250/4, Muthusami Mudaliar had put up a cattle-shed. On the eastern side of the land under the enjoyment of the Veeramuthu Padayachi...In this, for 250/21, 0.09.5 acre there is patta on Veeramuthu Padayachi. On 250/20' for Balakrishnan and seven others 0.10.0 patta has been given....In 1395 fasli, as per the Revenue records, there were no three parties. But crop has been harvested. After getting concurrence from the respondents and after holding enquiry, the patta was not transferred. As per the sale record on perusing the sale record, we have effected patta-transfer....When the respondents had ploughed the land, the police intercepted them. When garbage was deposited on the land, police intercepted them."
13. The aforesaid evidence of C.W.1 and C.W.2 would make it very clear that the petitioners herein had been the lessees of the temple and they were registered as cultivating tenants as per the Act and they continue to be in possession of the property by doing cultivation. However, they could not do the cultivation because of the interference by the police, probably at the instance of the fourth respondent which is a Federation of Government Employees.
14. If the fourth respondent wanted to evict the petitioners from the land, they should have initiated proceedings for eviction under
Section 3(2) of the Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. Only under those grounds which are mentioned in
Section 3(2) of the Act, a cultivating tenant can been evicted and not by any other mode. This has been clearly stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thimmappa Rai v. Ramanna Rai reported in 2007 (5) CTC 287. In paragraph 14 of the Judgment it is held as follows:
"14. Thus, inter alia a person, who thus, carries on personal cultivation of said land under a tenancy agreement expressed or implied, including one who continues in land after determination of the tenancy agreement in terms of the provisions of the Act, would be a cultivating tenant under the said Act and a landlord is prohibited from evicting him whether in execution of a decree or an order of a Court or otherwise."
15. In an earlier judgment in G.Ponniah Thevar Vs. Nalleyamperumal Pillai and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 244, arising under Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"Thus we see that statutory protection from eviction in this exhaustively comprehensive self contained procedure, may last even after the land-lord has filed the prescribed application for eviction after an accrual of his cause of action"
Para 6 of the Judgment is extracted as follows:
6. There is no doubt whatsoever that the appellant was the lessee whose right to cultivate as a tenant had not been determined by anything in the lease or under any statutory provision. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that even if there had been a determination of the tenancy under a lease, the appellant would still be a cultivating tenant as defined in the Act, because of the provision of
Section 2 (aa) (1)(2)(i) of the Act. Apparently, such a statutory definition of a cultivating tenant and an exhaustive procedure for his eviction in certain cases only and in no other case, are there so as to carry out the purpose stated in the preamble as follows:
"Where it is necessary to protect cultivating tenant in certain areas in the State of Madras from unjust eviction".
16. Without resorting to the procedure contemplated under Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, it is seen that the fourth respondent filed a petition under Section 5(2) of the Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969.
Section 5 of the Act reads as follows:
"5. Modification entries in the approved record of tenancy rights-
(1) where any person claims that in respect of any land already included in the approved record of tenancy rights any modification is required in respect of the entries in such record either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of the transfer of interest or by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make an application to the record officer for the modification of the relevant entries in the approved record of tenancy rights.
(2)An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim.
(3) (a) Before passing an order on an application under sub-section (1) the record officer shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. If the record officer decides that any modification should be made in respect of the entries in the approved record of tenancy rights he shall pass an order accordingly and shall effect the modification and make such incidental and consequential changes in the approved record of tenancy rights, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order.
(b) If the record officer decides that there is no case for effecting any modification in the entries in the approved record of tenancy rights he shall reject the application.
(c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reasons for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed."
17. A perusal of
Section 5 would reveal that the modification of entries in the approved record of tenancy rights can be made in the following circumstances:
(i) by reason of the death of any person
(ii)by reason of the transfer of interest and
(iii)by reason of any subsequent changes in circumstances.
18. In the present case, modification could be done only with regard to transfer of interest that is to say, instead of temple's name, the fourth respondent's name could be entered as owner of the land and nothing could be done beyond that. However, the first respondent made an exercise under
Section 5(2) of the Act and went beyond his jurisdiction and held that the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefits of the Act observing that the petitioners were not tendering their lease arrears. Moreover, he relied upon the evidence of the fourth respondent and came to the conclusion that the possession was not with the petitioners. On the other hand, he referred about the evidence of the petitioners and observed "though the petitioner has stated the possessions has come to him after the purchase was made, since all the respondents (petitioners in the writ petition) have adduced evidence to the effect that during 1396 fasli cultivation was not done, it is to be considered that at present the enjoyment is not with them".
19. It is the categorical assertion of C.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer, that when the petitioners ploughed the land, the Police stopped them. The petitioners also straightforwardly deposed before the first respondent that they could not cultivate from fasli 1396 onwards because of the Police action. Anybody can understand that the action of the Police was only at the instance of the fourth respondent, a Government Employees Federation, who used Police force after purchase of the property.
20. A Government Employee Federation which is supposed to act according to Law cannot circumvent the Rule of law by misusing the provisions of a wrong Act according to its whims and fancies. The fourth respondent could not have approached the first respondent in the guise of modification of entries in the approved record of tenancy rights contending that the possession was delivered to it by the Devasthanam pursuant to the sale deed and that it was in possession of the property and that the petitioners were not in possession of the property. By filing petition under Section 5 of Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, the fourth respondent deliberately avoided invoking the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenancy Protection Act, which gives limited right to the landlord to evict the cultivating tenant from the lands. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case under Madras cultivating Tenants Protection Act in G.Ponniah Thevar Vs. Nalleyamperumal Pillai and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 244.
"These enactments are really meant for the purposes proclaimed by them. The obvious effect of statutory provisions cannot be taken away or whittled down by forensic sophistory. Courts should not allow themselves to become tools for defeating clearly expressed statutory intentions".
21. Sensing that it may not be successful in its attempt to take the possession of the property under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenancy Protection Act, the fourth respondent indulged in indirect way to take possession from the cultivating Tenants (the petitioners) by filing
Section 5 petition under the Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, based on plea of possession which is false has to be deprecated and discouraged. Hence the order passed is nothing but improper exercise of the Jurisdiction of the first respondent causing grave miscarriage of justice as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh and another vs State of Punjab and others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868.
22. The findings arrived at by the first respondent are contradictory in nature. At one place, he observed that the petitioners were not the lessees; in an other place, he observed that the petitioners had lease arrears to be cleared and they were not prepared to remit lease arrears till date. In another place, the first respondent observed as follows:
"Therefore, for the respondents (the petitioners) who have been contesting cases in several courts, without tendering their lease-arrears, the tenancy protection Act would not give any protection."
The aforesaid finding would make it clear that the petitioners were in possession of lands as cultivating Tenants. In that event, the first respondent ought to have given finding as to how the petitioners were dispossessed of the lands and as to how the first respondent landed in the lands.
23. A careful examination of the first respondent's order would reveal that it is a bundle of contradictions and in fact the first respondent went beyond his jurisdiction and gave finding what was supposed to be given by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenancy Protection Act, 1955. Even as per the first respondent's order, the petitioners possession had been recognised. The first respondent held that the petitioners were not lessees and they were not entitled to any protection which is a perverse finding as the same is contrary to evidence available on record viz Gazette Notification dated 13.02.1972 issued under section 3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act.
24. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of A.P vs P.V.Hanumantha Rao (Dead) through L.Rs and another reported in (2003) 1O SCC 121 upheld the Judgment of the High Court, while dealing with a case under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 against the Judgment of the Special Court. The High Court examined the documents and interfered with the Judgment of the Special Court on finding not only its reasons or conclusions as erroneous but also finding that important evidence corrobarating the grant had not been properly scrutinised and important revenue records disregarded. On appeal by the State, Hon'ble Supreme Court in that matter held as follows:
30. True it is that remedy of the writ petition available in the High Court is not against the "decision" of the subordinate Court, tribunal or authority but it is against the "decision-making process". In the "decision-making process", if the Court, tribunal or authority deciding the case, has ignored vital evidence and thereby arrived at erroneous conclusion or has misconstrued the provisions of the relevant Act or misunderstood the scope of its jurisdiction, the constitutional power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 can be invoked to set right such errors and prevent gross injustice to the party complaining.
32. This Court has recognised the right of the High Court to interfere with orders of subordinate Courts and tribunals where (1) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it it is based on clear misreading or utter disregard of the provisions of Law, and (2) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
33. No doubt, it was held that neither in exercise of the power of writ under
Article 226 nor in supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227, the High Court will convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence. The power of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere where important evidence has been overlooked and the legal provisions involved are misinterpreted or misapplied has been recognised even in the case of Sawarn Singh on which strong reliance was placed on behalf of the State. The relevant observations are: (SCC p.872,para 13)
13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by an evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of Law."
25. Thus it is very clear that the first Respondent order as confirmed by the authorities and the Single Judge was based on a clear misunderstanding and utter disregard of the provisions of Law and against the evidence available on record and liable to be set-aside.
26. It has been held by 7 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.ChandraKumar vs Union of India and others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, that it is the duty of Superior Courts to oversee that the judicial decisions rendered by the Sub-ordinate Courts and Tribunals do not fall foul of strict standard of legal correctness. In this case, hopelessly, the first respondent who was duty bound to prove his legal possession of the property failed to prove and inspite of that the other respondents decreed the first respondent's claim and the same is against evidence available on record. Hence, the decisions of the lower authorities are to be set aside by this Court.
27. The functions and jurisdiction of the Record Officer has been stated by the Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Periathambi Goundan v. The District Revenue Officer reported in 93 LW 169, which is extracted as follows:
".. .. .. If, on the other hand, the decision of the controversy is that the land has not been let for cultivation by a tenant there is no question of there being any tenancy rights in respect of the said land and consequently, there is no question of the Record Officer ascertaining or determining any further particulars in this behalf. Therefore, if such controversy arises, that controversy cannot be said to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities functioning under the Act, and any determination of that controversy by the authorities can be said to be only incidental to the assumption of jurisdiction by the authorities under the Act. Subject to this qualification it can be held that once the Record Officer or any other authority functioning under the Act has come to the conclusion that the land has been let for cultivation by a tenant, the matters provided for in S.3(2) have to be determined by the Record Officer, or other authority functioning under the Act, and to that extent the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under S.16-A of the Act.
37. With particular reference to the facts of this case, as the Record Officer had jurisdiction to decide the name and address of the tenant cultivating the land, if there are competing claims by two persons that they are cultivating tenants he had necessarily to decide that question."
As per the aforesaid Judgment, the Record Officer has to decide the name and address of the tenant of the cultivating land and if there are any competiting claims by two persons, the same has to be decided.
28. Whereas in this case, the subsequent purchaser only filed the petition for modification of entries. Without calling upon the fourth respondent to prove as to how it was put in possession of the property as per Law by the Devasthanam and it continues to be in possession of the property excluding the possession of the petitioners. The first respondent gave findings which are based on no evidence. Without appreciating the facts in proper perspective the second and third respondents also confirmed the perverse order of the first respondent and subsequently by the learned single Judge.
29. The finding of the learned single Judge that the lands were not cultivated for more than ten years, that the petitioners claiming tenancy right did not enjoy the property for several years and that they did not pay the rent to the temples and that they were not in possession of the property would not make the fourth Respondent to be in possession of the property. These aforesaid findings only supported the petitioners case that they are the cultivating tenants.
30. One another aspect is that the petitioners filed various suits against the fourth respondent and obtained a decree of permanent injunction against them. Even as per the decree and judgment dated 31.07.1991, obtained by Muthusamy Mudaliar (the first petitioner), there was a clear finding with regard to the possession of the property by the said Muthusamy Mudaliar that the property remains with the first petitioner and if the fourth respondent wanted to take possession of the property, it had to initiate proceedings for getting possession of the property from the said Muthusamy Mudaliar. The Civil Court also clearly found that the fourth respondent could have got only symbolic possession of the lands and not actual physical possession. Hence the plea of possession of the lands by the fourth respondent and consequent plea for removal of petitioners name from the Tenancy Rights Register under Section 5(2) of Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act 1969 before the first Respondent is not maintainable and the first Respondent got no jurisdiction to decide the issue as the matter required to be decided by the second Respondent under the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu cultivating Tenants Protection Act. In the aforesaid situation/circumstance, this Court can issue writ Under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For that, this Court gets support from the Judgment of Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044 which held as follows:
"38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:-
(3) Certiorari, under
Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction. Or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural Justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction."
31. At the risk of repetition, this Court reiterates that the fourth respondent has to demonstrate by pleading and evidence as to how the possession of the property was taken from the petitioners as they were the registered cultivating tenant which has been fortified by the gazette notification dated 13.02.1972. The authorities also failed to give reasoning as to how the petitioners were dispossessed from the property and as to how the possession had landed in the hands of the fourth respondent. There was no proper enquiry by the authorities by going into the details of the evidence.
32. Normally this Court will not venture into finer details of the evidence and finding of facts. However, the facts of the case warranted the said examination. Though finding of facts cannot be reversed in appeal under
Article 226 usually, the Court is not powerless, when the authorities below erroneously assumed jurisdiction which they are not entitled to exercise and gave erroneous and perverse findings contrary to the evidence available on record. Moreover the findings given in this are based on no evidence and authorities gave finding on the basis of conjectures and surmises and they have to be set-aside. Hence this Court reverses those erroneous decisions of the authorities as confirmed by the Single Judge in the interest of Justice. This Court gets supports for the aforesaid conclusion in Nagendra Nath Bera vs Commissioner of skills Division and Appeals reported in AIR 1958 SC 398 wherein it was held by the Apex Court that under
Article 226, the power of interference may extend to quashing of impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent in the face of the record. This is a classic case where the mighty used its powers to get rid off the possession persons whose rights are protected by a statute. It is well settled Law that even an encroacher cannot be dispossessed except by due process of Law. When that is the position, the fourth Respondent cannot be allowed to contend imaginary possession by it without proving as to how the possession of the property was taken from the cultivating tenant. The evidence available on record show that the petitioners continue to be in possession of the disputed lands as "Cultivating Tenants" and the first respondent is not in possession of the same.
33. As stated above the finding recorded by the authorities confirmed by the single Judge are based on no evidence, they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, they are set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Shail (Smt) vs ManojKumar and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 785 that the High court has power to make directions by way of guiding inferior Courts or Tribunals as to manner in which it would proceed hence, but also has jurisdiction itself to pass such a decision or direction as the inferior Court Tribunal should have made. As this Court found that the Appellants are in possession of the lands as cultivating tenants, this Court under
Article 226 directs that:
(1)The petitioner's possession of lands should not be disturbed by anybody including the fourth Respondent and Police except by due process of law.
(2) The first Respondent to make entry of fourth Respondent's name as "owner" of the land in question under Section 5(2) of Tamil Nadu Agricultural lands record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the orders of the Single Judge and authorities are set-aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.
svki