V.Chinnachamy (deceased) v. The District Revenue Officer Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:28.04.2008CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIWRIT PETITION NO.10356 OF 19991.V.Chinnachamy (deceased)2.Guruvammal3.Jayalakshmi4.Bose5.Gandhimathi6.Indira7.Vijayalakshmi8.Bharathi9.Alagarsamy.. PetitionersPetitioners brought an record as LRs thedeceased as per Order of this Court dated20.11.2000 petitioner in wmp 25372of 2000.vs.1.The District Revenue OfficerVirudhunagar DistrictVirudhunagar.2.The Revenue CourtSpecial Deputy CollectorMadurai.3.The Record Officer andTahsildar, Srivilliputhur.4.K.Periasamy.. RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for therecords of the first respondent in ROC B3/36508/97 and quash theorder dated 06.04.99.For petitioners: Mr.T.Srinivasa RaghavanFor respondents: Mr.V.Senthilkumar Government Advocate for R.1 & 3 Mr.S.Thankasamy for R.2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERThis writ petition is filed challenging the order of the firstrespondent dated 06.04.1999, under which the first respondent whileconfirming the order of the second respondent dated 20.01.1997, hasrejected the revision filed by V.Chinnachami, the original writpetitioner.2. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the sole writpetitioner died and his legal representatives have been brought onrecord as petitioners 2 to 9. One of the sons of the writpetitioner, viz., Bharathi, who has been impleaded as 8th petitioner,has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the above writpetition wherein it is stated that the land measuring 1 acre and 40cents comprised in Survey No.722 in Kansapuram Village was leased outto his father V.Chinnachamy in the year 1970 by one Palpandi @Sadaiyandi and the said Chinnachamy has been cultivating from thedate of lease and therefore, he is a cultivating tenant as per theTamil Nadu Agricultural Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act,1955, andthe third respondent has recorded his name as a tenant under the saidAct after following the procedure prescribed under the Tamil NaduAgricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act (X of 1969) (inshort, "Act X of 1969). 2(a). Further, it is stated that the land owner was well aware ofthe above said fact, since he also received notice from the thirdrespondent. It is also stated that the land owner Palpandi @Sadayandi Moopanar has never cultivated the land and the saidChinnachamy contributed his physical labour in cultivation. The 4threspondent is stated to have purchased the land from Palpandi @Sadayandi Moopanar in the year 1991. After purchase, he has filed apetition under Section 5 of Act X of 1969 before the third respondentto delete the name of Chinnachamy from the record of tenancy. Thatwas contested by Chinnachamy on the basis that under Act X of 1969,there is no provision for deletion. However, the third respondent byhis order dated 30.12.1994, has allowed the said petition filed bythe 4th respondent.2(b). It was against the said order of the third respondent, anappeal was filed in Appeal No.62 of 1995 on the file of the secondrespondent. The second respondent has confirmed the order of thethird respondent on 20.01.1997, against which Chinnachamy filed arevision before the first respondent, which was dismissed by thefirst respondent on 06.04.1999, against which the present writpetition is filed.2(c). It is also stated that once the third respondent afterfollowing the procedure under Act X of 1969 has recorded the name ofChinnachamy as a tenant, petition filed by the 4th respondent under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 5 of Act X of 1969 for modification of the order is notmaintainable. According to Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counselfor the petitioners that Section 5 of Act X of 1969 contemplatescertain contingencies under which the modification is possible, viz.,due to death of any person, due to transfer of interest or by reasonof any subsequent change in the circumstances and in the absence ofany of such contingencies mentioned under Section 5 of Act X of 1969,removal of the name of Chinnachamy, by the third respondent, RecordOfficer, is not valid.2(d). Further, originally when the name of the petitioners'father was recorded by the third respondent, notice was given to theland owner. While so, the claim of the 4th respondent as if he wasnot given notice is not maintainable, especially when the thirdrespondent has not chosen to examine the original owner Palpandi @Sadayandi Moopanar, who has not chosen to object when the thirdrespondent recorded the name of Chinnachamy as tenant. According tothe learned counsel for the petitioners, the 4th respondent being thesubsequent purchaser from Palpandi @ Sadayandi Moopanar, havingstepped into his shoes cannot go beyond the conduct of his vendorPalpandi @ Sadayandi Moopanar.3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it isstated that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable considerationfrom his vendor Sadayandi, S/o.Karuppasamy Moopanar under aregistered deed, numbered as 1029/91. According to the 4threspondent, the name of Chinnachamy was wrongly entered as tenantunder the Record of Tenancy Rights Act and even before his purchase,he has been in possession as lessee and subsequent to the purchase asowner and the said Chinnachamy has clandestinely recorded his nameby producing bogus records without notice to the real owner. Inthose circumstances, the 4th respondent has filed a petition to modifythe wrong entry and the third respondent, after giving reasonableopportunity to both parties, has ordered to delete the name ofChinnachamy, which was confirmed by the second respondent, appellateauthority and also the first respondent, revisional authority underthe impugned order.3(a). According to the 4th respondent, the point which has beenraised by the petitioners has already been considered by theauthorities judiciously, which does not warrant any interference.It is the further case of the 4th respondent that even though the 4threspondent has purchased the land from Sadayandi S/o.KaruppasamyMoopanar, the said Sadayandi is not having any surname as Palpandiand therefore, the entry originally made by the third respondent byrecording the name of Chinnachamy as cultivating tenant has beenwrongly done, which necessitated the 4th respondent to file anapplication under Section 5 of Act X of 1969.3(b). On enquiry by the third respondent, based on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application filed by the 4th respondent under Section 5 of Act X of1969, it was revealed that when originally the name of Chinnachamywas entered as a tenant, there was no enquiry conducted at all. Itis the further case of the 4th respondent that the procedure underSection 3(5) of Act X of 1969 was not followed, when the name ofChinnachamy was recorded.3(c). It is also stated that during pendency of the proceedingsfor modification of the entires in the approved record of tenancyrights before competent authority, viz., the third respondent,petitioners' father has filed a suit in O.S.No.427 of 1991 before theDistrict Munsif's Court, Srivilliputhur against the 4th respondent andobtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.1241 of 1991,restraining the 4th respondent from interfering with possession andenjoyment of the said land and the matter is now pending in secondappeal before this Court. After amendment to Act X of 1969, thecivil Court's jurisdiction is ousted under Section 16A of the Act,and the said factum has not been disclosed by the writ petitioners.4. Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners would submit that in all these impugned proceedings aswell as appellate authority's order, the authority went into thequestion of evidence, which is not permissible in law. It is alsohis submission that under Section 5 of Act X of 1969, if any case ispending, no deletion is permissible. He would also rely upon thejudgement of this Court in Sri Thenpureeswaraswami Koil Devasthanam,Patteeswaram vs. The Court of the Revision Authority and DistrictRevenue Officer, Thanjavur and others (1997 (1) Law Weekly 773), tosubstantiate his contention that under Act X of 1969, there is noprovision to delete the name already recorded.4(a). It is his further submission that the suit filed by thepetitioners' father in O.S.No.427 of 1991 was decreed on 03.03.1997,which was however, reversed in the first appeal in A.S.No.46 of 1997and the petitioners' father has filed second appeal in S.A.No.138 of1998, which is pending before this Court, in which there is aninterim order to the effect that the petitioners' father is inpossession and deletion of his name on the application filed by the4th respondent in 1992, is incorrect. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learnedGovernment Advocate that originally when the third respondent hasrecorded the name of Chinnachamy as tenant, the name of the ownerwas stated as Palpandi, while in the records the name of the owner isstated as Sadayandi S/o.Karuppasamy Moopanar, and it was afterfinding out that Palpandi is different from Sadayandi and having cometo the conclusion that the previous enquiry was not properlyconducted, the third respondent has deleted the name of Chinnachamy,which has been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by therevisional authority. Further, it is the contention of the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Advocate that the petitioners have a right of appeal tothe Special Commissioner (Land Administration) and without exhaustingthe appellate remedy, the writ petition is filed and therefore,according to him, in the presence of alternative remedy, the writpetition is not maintainable. He would also submit that regardingmodification of the order passed under Section 5(3) of Act X of 1969,statutory appeal is provided. 6. It is seen that the 4th respondent even after service has notchosen to appear either himself or through counsel in spite of thefact that his name has been printed in the cause list even though hehas filed a counter affidavit as elicited above.7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learnedGovernment Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the records.8. A reference to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record ofTenancy Rights Act (Act X of 1969) shows that the object of the saidAct is to prepare and maintain record of tenancy rights in respect ofthe agricultural lands in the State and the said Act has receivedassent of the President on 10.07.1969 and published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette on 17.07.1979. Section 3 of the said Actprovides for a detailed procedure to be followed for the preparationof record of tenancy rights. The preparation of record of tenancyrights as per Section 3 which contains an elaborate procedure is asfollows:"3. Preparation of record of tenancy rights.-(1) The Government may, by notification, direct thepreparation of a record of tenancy rights for such villageof villages as may be specified in the notification andsuch record shall be prepared, maintained and revised inaccordance with the provisions of this Act and the rulesmade thereunder.(2) The record referred to in sub-section (1) shallcontain the following particulars, namely:-(a) the survey number or sub-division number, extentand local name, if any, of the land;(b) the name and address of the landowner;(c) the name and address of the intermediary, if any;(d) the name and address of the tenant cultivating theland; and(e) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (3)(a) As soon as may be, after the publication of anotification under sub section(1), the record officer shallpublish a notice in the village informing the public that arecord of tenancy rights is to be prepared for thatvillage, and that the landowner, tenant, or intermediary ofevery land which has been let for cultivation shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ intimate in writing to him of his interest in such land.(b) The notice shall contain such further particulars,and shall be published in such manner, as may be prescribed(4) On the basis of the intimation given under Clause(a) of sub-section(3) or on the basis of informationobtained by the record officer under Section 9(or on thebasis of information and particulars furnished orrecommendation made by the Advisory Committee under section5-A) or in such other manner as may be prescribed, therecord officer shall after giving a reasonable opportunityto the parties concerned to make their representationseither orally or in writing, prepare a draft record oftenancy rights for the village.(5) As soon as may be after the completion of thepreparation of the draft record of tenancy rights for avillage, such draft record shall be published in theDistrict Gazette of the District in which the village issituated and in such other manner as may be prescribed. Anextract of the entries in the draft record relating to anysurvey number or sub-division number of the land shall alsobe served on the landowner, intermediary, if any, and thetenant concerned.(6) Any person aggrieved by such draft record eitheron the ground that the entry in respect of particularsrelating to him is incorrect or on the ground that his nameor other particulars relating to the land which has beenlet for cultivation and in which he has interest either aslandowner, intermediary or tenant have been omitted to beincluded in such draft record, may, within such period asmay be prescribed make an application to the record officerfor the rectification of such entry or for the inclusion ofsuch name or particulars in the draft record of tenancyrights.(7) An application under sub-section(6) shall containsuch particulars as may be prescribed and shall beaccompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by theapplicant as evidence in support of his claim(8) (a) before passing an order on an applicationunder sub-section(6) the record officer shall follow suchprocedure as may be prescribed and shall also give areasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to maketheir representations either orally or in writing. If therecord officer decides that any rectification or inclusionshould be made, he shall pass an order accordingly.(b) If the record officer decides that there is nocase for effecting the rectification or inclusion in thedraft record of tenancy rights, he shall reject theapplication.(c)An order under clause(a) or clause(b) shall containthe reasons for such order and shall be communicated to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed.(9) After the disposal of all the applications undersub-section(6) in respect of any village, the recordofficer shall make necessary alterations in the draftrecord of tenancy rights in accordance with the orderspassed under sub-section (8) and shall prepare the finalrecord of tenancy rights for the village.(10) As soon as may be, after the completion of thepreparation of the final record of tenancy rights for avillage such final record shall be published in the FortSt.George Gazette and the record so published shall becalled the approved record of tenancy rights. The approvedrecord of tenancy rights shall also be published in theDistrict Gazette of the District in which the village issituated and in such other manner as may be prescribed."9. While Section 4 enables any tenant having interest in the landor intermediary, who has been let for cultivating can apply to theRecord Officer for inclusion of the said land after the publicationof approved tenancy rights under Section 3 of the Act. It is alsoseen that under Section 4-A, the Record Officer has also suo motupower to conduct enquiry, who shall pass orders to the effect thatthe particulars of the land should be included in the draft orapproved record of tenancy and necessary entries can be made.Section 5 of the Act deals with the modification of entries in theapproved tenancy rights, which is as follows:"5. Modification of entries in the approved record oftenancy rights.-(1) Where any person claims that in respect of any landalready included in the approved record of tenancy rightsany modification is required in respect of the entries insuch record either by reason of the death of any person orby reason of the transfer of interest or by reason of anyother subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make anapplication to the record officer for the modification ofthe relevant entries in the approved record of tenancyrights.(2) An application under sub-section(1) shall containsuch particulars as may be prescribed and shall beaccompanied by the documents, if any, relief on by theapplicant as evidence in support of his claim.(3) (a) Before passing an order on an application undersub-section(1) the record officer shall follow suchprocedure as may be prescribed and shall also give areasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to maketheir representations either orally or in writing. If therecord officer decides that any modification should be madein respect of the entries in the approved record of tenancyrights he shall pass an order accordingly and shall effect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the modification and make such incidental and consequentialchanges in the approved record of tenancy rights, as appearto him to be necessary for giving effect to his order.(b) If the record officer decides that there is no casefor effecting any modification in the entries in theapproved record of tenancy rights he shall reject theapplication.(c) An order under clause(a) or clause(b) shall containthe reasons for such order and shall be communicated to theparties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed."10. Considering the scope of the said Act X of 1969, especiallyrelating to the preparation of record of tenancy rights under Section3, a Division Bench consisting of K.A.Swami,CJ. (as he then was) andAR.Lakshmanan,J.(as he then was) in Sri Thenpureeswaraswami KoilDevasthanam, Patteeswaram vs. The Court of the Revision Authority andDistrict Revenue Officer, Thanjavur and others (1997 (1) Law Weekly773) held that the said Section 3 of Act X of 1969 has providedsufficient safeguards and a detailed procedure has been formulatedunder the Act and that the Act and Rules, if read together, aresufficient to come to the conclusion that every person interested inthe land is bound to know about the proceedings relating topreparation of record of tenancy rights. The Bench has ultimatelyheld that the provisions of Act X of 1969 cannot be compared toSection 4 of Wakf Act,1954 and that Act X of 1969 is a self containedcode. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Division Benchdealing with the Rules framed under Act X of 1969 is as follows:"21. In addition to the detailed provisions contained inthe Act, affording sufficient opportunity to the landowner,intermediary or tenant cultivating the land, the Rulesframed under the Act, known as "Tamil Nadu AgriculturalLands Record of Tenancy Rights Rules, 1969 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Rules") also prescribe a detailedprocedure. Rule 4 of the Rules provides as to in whatmanner the public notice under S.3(3)(a) of the Act shouldbe published. It prescribes the Form of Notice as FormNo.11 and further provides that such notice shall beaffixed in the village chavadi or other public place inthe village, on the notice board of the village or townpanchayat; on the notice board of the office of the RecordOfficer; and also by beat of tom tom and by publication inimportant local dailies for two days alternatively. A copyof the notice is also required to be furnished to theMembers of the Committee. The landowners, intermediaries,tenants and other persons having interest in the land areentitled to send intimation to the Record Officer in FormNo.III regarding the interest held by them within one monthfrom the date of publication of the notice under sub-rule(1) of Rule 4 of the Rules. It is also open to the Record https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officer to accept such intimation received even after theexpiry of one month, if sufficient cause is shown. Rule 5provides that the Record Officer after expiry of the periodmentioned in Form No.II, shall cause necessary forverification to be made with reference to the villagerecords and by such local enquiries as may be considerednecessary after getting the required information and afterdue verification the Record Officer is required to fix adate for enquiry and has to give notice for the same to thevillagers. Such notice shall have to be published byaffixture in the village chavadi, other public place in thevillage; by affixture on the notice board of the office ofthe Record Officer and also by beat of tom tom in thevillage. On holding such enquiry, as may be considerednecessary on the date fixed for enquiry after givingreasonable opportunity to the parties concerned, the RecordOfficer has to record in writing if any evidence istendered and obtain the signature of the deponent. Thedraft record of tenancy rights prepared under sub-section(4) of S.3 of the Act apart from publishing in the DistrictGazette, it shall have to be published by affixture in thevillage chavadi or other public place in the village; byaffixture in the notice board of the village or townpanchayat and by affixture on the notice board of theoffice of the Record Officer. Rule 7 of the Rules furtherprovides for filing of application for rectification orinclusion in draft record under S.3(6). On consideringsuch applications, after giving due opportunity to theapplicants and the persons having any interest in the landmentioned in the application and recording the evidence, ifany, adduced by the parties, the Record Officer has toprepare the approved Record of Tenancy Right and publishthe same by affixture in the village Chavadi or otherpublic place in the village; by affixture on the noticeboard of the village or town panchayat; by affixture on thenotice board of the office of the Record Officer. Rules10,10-A,11 and 11-A provide for the making of theapplication and the procedure to be followed for thepurpose of S.4.4-A, and 5 of the Act. It is, thus, clearthat not only the Act consists of elaborate procedure, butthe Rules also prescribe detailed procedure and mode ofpublication. The mode of publication is so elaborate thatevery person interested in the land is bound to come toknow of the proceedings relating to preparation of Recordof Tenancy Rights. Such an elaborate procedure is not foundin the Wakf Act. When the statute provides an elaborateprocedure to safeguard the rights of the persons havinginterest in the land and affords an opportunity to putforth their claims, it will not be permissible to readsomething else into it and introduce the principle of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ natural justice. The very procedure and the mode ofpublication prescribed themselves are in quite conformitywith the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there isno question of issuance of individual notices when thepreparation of individual Records of Tenancy Rightsthroughout the State has to be undertaken and when all theinterested parties in the land have been given anopportunity to put forth their cases at the time ofpreparing the Draft Record of Tenancy Right and even afterthe publication of the approved Record of Tenancy Rights." 11. It is also relevant to point out at this stage that Section16-A, which was added by Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 1972 imposes a bar onjurisdiction of civil Court including any order of injunction inrespect of action taken or to be taken by any Officer under Act X of1969. The said Section 16-A reads as under:"16-A. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts- No CivilCourt shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter whichthe record officer the District Collector or other officeror authority empowered by or under this Act has to determineand no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respectof any action taken or to be taken by such officer orauthority in pursuance of any power conferred by or underthis Act.12. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it isseen that the name of Chinnachamy was recorded as a cultivatingtenant in the year 1972. Even though in the record of tenancy, thename of landlord has been recorded as Palpandi, as published in theRamanathapuram Gazette in 1972 and admittedly, till 1991, there wasno objection for the record of Chinnachamy as a cultivating tenant,and about the name of the landlord stated as Palpandi also, there wasno objection raised by anyone from 1972 till 1991. The 4th respondenthas purchased the property from the land owner on 18.08.1991. It wasdue to the reason that the 4th respondent after purchase has refusedto receive rent for the lease from Chinnachamy, he has approachedthe District Munsif's Court, Srivilliputhur by filing O.S.No.427 of1991. 13. The civil Court has originally granted a decree in favour ofChinnachamy on 03.03.1997, however, on appeal filed by the 4threspondent against the said judgement, the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhurin A.S.No.46 of 1997, by judgement dated 23.12.1997, set aside thedecree of the trial Court on the basis of pendency of proceedingsunder Act X of 1969. The pendnecy of the proceedings referred to bythe appellate Court relates to the application filed by the 4threspondent under Section 5 of Act X of 1969. While the sale infavour of the 4th respondent is not disputed by Chinnachamy, the 4threspondent has filed application before the third respondent under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 5 of the Act on the main ground that at the time of originalenquiry conducted by the third respondent in the year 1972, by whichthe name of Chinnachamy was recorded as tenant, the name of the ownerwas only mentioned as Palpandi, but the name of the owner isSadayandi S/o.Karuppasamy Moopanar and therefore, the notice given inthe name of Palpandi in the original proceedings of the thirdrespondent while preparing record of tenancy is not valid in the eyeof law. The original enquiry by the third respondent recordingChinnachamy as a tenant was found to be of no value which wasaccepted by the appellate as well as revisional authority. 14. But the fact remains that whether it is Palpandi orSadayandi, who is the son of Karuppasamy Moopanar, who was theoriginal owner of the property. Therefore, the short point to bedecided in this case is as to whether the third respondent, whileperforming his function as a Record Officer under Section 5 of Act Xof 1969 can modify the approved record of tenancy or subsequentinclusion either on the basis that there has been a transfer ofinterest or subsequent change in circumstances.15. It is seen that the 4th respondent has become the owner bytransfer from Sadayandi in 1991 while the name of Chinnachamy wasrecorded as tenant as per Section 3 of Act X of 1969 as early as inthe year 1972. The 4th respondent, after his purchase has raisedobjection, which is nearly after 20 years from the date of recordingof the name of Chinnachamy as a tenant stating that the name of theoriginal owner has been wrongly given and the third respondent haswrongly recorded the name of Chinnachamy as a tenant. As it isdiscussed by the Division Bench cited supra, the procedurecontemplated under Section 3 of the Act for the purpose of record oftenancy is elaborate so that there is no chance for anyone to missthe opportunity of raising objection. 16. In the present case, when it is admitted that the originalowner was Karuppasamy Moopanar and the name of his son was stated asPalpandi S/o.Karuppasamy Moopanar, the entry in the record cannot bestated to be either a subsequent change in circumstances or a rightwhich can be exercised by the 4th respondent being a subsequentpurchaser, especially in the circumstance that the original owner hasnever raised any objection from 1972 till the sale of the land to the4th respondent. The right of the purchaser on transfer cannot gobeyond the right of his transferor. In such circumstances, the orderof the third respondent in deleting the name of Chinnachamy recordedas a cultivating tenant in the year 1972 cannot be one to be treatedunder Section 5 of Act X of 1969.17. The appellate as well as revisional authority proceeded onlyon the basis that while all the lands belong to Karuppasamy Moopanarhave been recorded in the name of his son Sadayandy Moopanar, thepresent property in question has been recorded in the name of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Palpandi S/o.Karuppasamy Moopanar and therefore, the original writpetitioner Chinnachamy by manipulation, has obtained the orderrecording his name in the year 1972 as a tenant. On the factualcircumstances that Chinnachamy had been doing agricultural work inthe land concerned even before recording of his name as tenant in1972 and the petitioners are in possession as on today, as it isfound by this Court in the interim order dated 13.08.1998 passed inCMP.Nos.1259 and 8481 of 1998 in S.A.No.130 of 1998, I am of theconsidered view that the impugned order of the first respondent isliable to be set aside on the ground that the third respondent had nojurisdiction to remove the name of Chinnachamy while exercising hispowers under Section 5 of Act X of 1969. In the absence of anyone ofthe contingencies contemplated under Section 5 of Act X of 1969, itis not possible for this Court to accept the view of respondents 2and 3 in their orders, which have culminated ultimately into theimpugned revisional order of the first respondent.In view of the same, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.khTo1.The District Revenue OfficerVirudhunagar DistrictVirudhunagar.2.The Revenue CourtSpecial Deputy CollectorMadurai.3.The Record Officer andTahsildar, Srivilliputhur.+ 1 CC to Mr.T.Srinivasaraghavan, Advocate SR NO.24923 P.D.Order in W.P.No.10356 of 1999RA(CO)JJM(08.05.08)