Mere possession does not confer any rights.

These writ petitions are filed to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings No.K.A.P.8/90/N5, dated 17. 19991 and quash the same.

2. In these writ petitions the writ petitioner has chosen to question the orders passed by the first respondent dated 17. 1991 in K.A.P.No.8/90/N5 wherein the first respondent had decided that the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions are eligible to get patta under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudieruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act 40 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions has argued that the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions have filed petitions claiming patta under the provisions of Act 40 of 1971 to an extent of 005 cents of Punjab lands comprised in Survey No.142/60/B situate at Manali village. Learned counsel has further argued that for issuance of patta, one should be a tenant, or a licensee or a lessee of the Kudieruppu house sites and should be in occupation of the Kudieruppu from 16. 1971, subsequently the Act has been amended as with effect from 4. 1990. Further more, the occupant must be an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer who is eking out his livelihood from the said avocation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also argued that sub clause 8 to Sec.2 of the Act defines “Kudiyiruppu”. Relying on the above provisions learned counsel has stated that any agriculturist, or agricultural labourer who are occupying any kudiyiruppu from 16. 1971 or from 4. 1990 can apply for patta if he is occupying the particular kudiyiruppu as a tenant or a licensee.

5. Learned counsel has contended that when the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions have applied for grant of pattas in respect of their lands for an extent of 005 cents of Punjab Lands, the Deputy Tahsildar passed on order on 312. 1982 holding that the fourth respondents (in both the writ petitions) did not give consent for the alternative sites. On appeal, the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur had set aside the orders of the Tahsildar and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.

6. After remand, the fourth respondents in both the writ petitions have filed the receipts for the years 1973, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81 and 82 alleging that the earlier receipts were lost in the cyclone. The main contention of the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions was that they were agricultural coolies and doing works in the paddy nursery. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no evidence to the effect that they were eking out their livelihoods by doing coolies in the paddy nursery, and also there was no evidence to show that they were agriculturists. The respondents have formerly relied on the depositions of the village Administrative officer and the Panchayat Board president who gave evidence as if they were agriculturists. Except oral evidence there is no documentary evidence to show that the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions are agriculturists. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that mere occupation is not sufficient and they have to prove the status either as a lessee or a tenant. But the fourth respondent in both the writ petitions have failed to prove that they are either agriculturists, or tenants or lessees, as on the crucial date that is on 4. 1990. Except the oral testimonies of the Panchayat Board President and the Village Administrative Officer there was no corroborative evidence available to show that they were in occupation of the lands in question as tenants or as lessees, and the respondents have failed to adopt the definition of Sec.2(8) of the Act. In the above circumstances, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of rebuttal evidence that the third respondent has erred in declar