Powers of Revisional Authority elaborated.

.1. In this Writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of Writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent in his T.R.No. 50/90 (A8) dated 14. 1988 confirming the order of the 1st respondents in his S.R.T.R.No. 4/92, dated 1. 1993 and to quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to record the petitioners name as cultivating tenant in respect of lands at S.Nos. 66/A2 and 66/A3 in Ariyamangalam Revenue Village, Trichy District measuring to an extent of 2.66 acres.

2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are these. The fourth respondent, Sri Kanchi Kamakodi Peedathipathi Mutt, Kumbakonam is the owner of the lands at S.F.Nos. 66/A2 and 66/A3 to an extent of 2.66 acres at Ariyamangalam Revenue Village, Trichy Taluk, the said lands were originally let out to the father of the 5th respondent one Muthuraja. Subsequently, the petitioner became sub-tenant under the 5th respondent on executing a deed to the effect on 21. 1977.

3. The petitioner filed an application before the third respondent Record Officer and Tahsildar, Trichy under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to register her name as a cultivating tenant after deleting the name of the 5th respondent and his father who have no interest in the said lands. The 5th respondent opposed the said application by contending that there were no sub-lease and he had only allowed the petitioner to exploit the lands for a term of four years and one and half-a-year respectively as a mode of discharge for adjusting his earlier dues to the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the documents marked as Exhibits Al to A4 to prove the sub-lease as well as his possession. He has also marked list receipts and cash receipts issued by the land owners. However, the third respondent dismissed the application of the petitioner by an order dated 14. 1988 in T.R.No. 50/80 (A8), dated 14. 1988.

4. Against the order of the third respondent the petitioner filed an Appeal No. 10 of 1988 on the file of the second respondent and the second respondent who is the appellate authority, after going into the matter remanded it for fresh disposal by the third respondent after affording reasonable opportunities for both sides. The appellate authority also observed that the possession is with the petitioner on the strength of the documents adduced by her. The order of remand was passed on 29. 1990.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent filed a revision petition before the first respondent. District Revenue Officer, Trichy in S.R.T.R.No. 4 of 1992, and the revisional authority allowed the revision and confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent by an order dated 1. 1993. As against the said order of the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for the relief which I have mentioned above.

6. On behalf of the 5th respondent, counter-affidavit has been filed in which he rrts denied all the allegations made in the affidavit of the petitioner except those which are specifically admitted by him.

7. He has stated that the fourth respondent is the owner of lands S.f.Nos. 66/A2 and 66/A3 to the extent of 1.20 acres and 1.45 acres, respectively at Ariyamangalam Revenue Village, Trichy Taluk and the said lands were let out to his father to continue to cultivate the said lands as a cultivating tenant and he acquired from his paternal grand father. After the death of his father, the 5th respondent continued as a cultivating tenant under the 4th respondent. He has denied the allegations that the petitioner became subtenant under him on executing the deed to the effect on 21. 1997. He further submitted that the petitioner has concocted a document as if the fifth respondent had empowered the petitioner, in the year 1978 to take the yield fr