The main legal point established is the requirement for authorities to adhere to principles of natural justice, consider evidentiary value of documents, and comply with procedural rules in making decisions.

Ramachandran, J.

These revisions arise from the order of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur dated. 15.4.1988 in S.M. 243 of 1977.

2. The revision petitioners in these three revisions were parties to S.M. 243 of 1977 before the Taluk Land Board of Chittur. It was a suo motu proceedings taken by the Taluk Land Board of Chittur against one Muthuswamy Gounder stating that he had excess lands and that he should surrender the properties in excess of the ceiling area. On 16.11.1974, the ceiling proceedings were dropped. On 27.8.1971, Muthuswamy Gounder died and his wife was treated as assessee. Later on verification by the Special Tahsildar a draft statement of the excess land was prepared. On 3.3.1978, the Taluk Land Board decided to include 72,91 acres more over and above 29.50 acres shown in the draft statement in view of the report of the Special Tahsildar. Thus, on 3.3.1978, a revised statement was prepared. It was directed that the tenants reported to he in the possession of portions of the area should be impleaded. The first respondent in the proceedings was the wife of Muthuswarny Gounder. The second respondent was Chenniappa Gounder. Respondents 3 to 9 were the alleged tenants. One Ramaswamy Pillai got: himself impleaded as 10th respondent. Muthuswarny Gounder was governed by Hindu law. He had two sons and two daughters. The sons were Kumaravel and Balasubramaniam. There was a partition decree in O.S. No. 243 of 1963 of the Sub Court of Coimbatore. In the year 1969, Muthuswarny Gounder and his two sons had executed three gift deeds. Document No. 1519 of 1969 was in favour of his wife, who is the revision petitioner in C.R. P. No. 2164 of 1989. The other gift deeds were in favour of his daughters by name Velathal and Bhagyalakshmi. The remaining properties alone were partitioned by himself and his two sons in the year 1969. A, B and C Schedule properties were allotted to each sharer. It was mentioned that the properties shown in the gift deeds were outstanding in the possession of tenants. Purchase certificates were obtained by mem from the Land Tribunal. Tenancies were mentioned in the tax assessment proceedings. They produced levy notices also. Respondents 1 to 10 therein contended that there was no property in excess to be surrendered. The partition deed, there gift deeds, the assessment orders in which rent was shown as income from 1961 onwards and building tax receipts and levy notices were produced before the Taluk Land Board. The second respondent contended that lie was cultivating 12.18 acres as alessee. It was leased originally to Ramaswamy Gounder from Muthuswarny Gounder and Chenniappa Gounder got assignment of his own right. In O.A. Nos.701 and 702 of 1972 of Chittur Land Tribunal Jenm right was purchased and certificates obtained. The second respondent had produced 34 documents like levy notices, levy receipts, notices from Taluk Supply Officer, Land cess notices from Agricultural Income Tax Officer and Labour Officer and two purchase certificates.

3.The third respondent contended that he was in possession of 14.97 acres as leased from Muthuswamy Gounder in the year 1959 on an annual rent of 245 paras of paddy. Patta was granted in O. A. Nos. 749,750 and 751 of 1972. He contended that there was a Kudikidappu in the property. 32 documents were produced by him including levy and land cess receipts.

4. The 4th respondent contended possession of 13.54 acres. According to him his father took the properties on leasehold right from Muthuswamy Gounder stipulating to pay annual rent of 300 paras of paddy. On the death of his father, the 4th respondent claimed tenancy right. He obtained purchase certificates in O.A. 748 of 1972. He produced the patta in O.A. No. 748 of 1972, notices and receipts, totalling 13 documents.

5. The 5th respondent contended that he had a lease of 13.68 acres from Muthuswamy Gounder and that he was in possession of it. In the proceedings in C.C. No: 1022 of 1973, it was found that he had no exc