The revisional authority under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, cannot reappreciate the evidence on record and is only empowered to pass such orders as it may think fit.

K.A. Swami, CJ.

1. At the stage of admission, respondents are notified. Accordingly. Mr.R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel has put in appearance for the 1st respondent. The other respondents are the official respondents. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 11. 95 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8888 of 1985. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Tahsildar Record Officer, Appellate Authority and also the revisional authority and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar-Record Officer, Madurai for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The order passed by the learned single Judge, being short one, we extract the same as hereunder:

“Arguments of the learned Advocates for the writ petitioner together with the arguments of the learned Advocate for the respondents were heard. The point that arises for consideration is whether there are valid grounds to allow the writ petition or not?

At the very outset I would like to state that the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner did not argue the matter on merits but requested this Court to remand the matter to the Court below, i.e. the 1st respondent herein for fresh disposal in accordance with law, as the 1st respondent did not examine the materials available on record, particularly with regard to the entries in adangals which are paramount documents. I have gone through the materials available on record and also the order passed by the 1st 2nd and 3rd respondent. Having considered entire materials available on record, I am of the clear opinion that it is proper to remand the matter to the Court below i.e., the 1st respondent herein for fresh disposal in accordance with law as it will meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to both sides to let in evidence both oral and documentary but in the circumstances without costs.”

Hence aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the 4th respondent in the writ petition has come up in appeal.

3. The appellant herein filed an application before the Tahsildar - Record Officer, Madurai to record him as a cultivating tenant, in respect of the lands in question comprised in S.No.51/5 (3.42 acres) of Pathinettangudi Village, in the tenancy records. The Tahsildar, held an enquiry, afforded an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties and ultimately rejected the application filed by the 4th respondent- the appellant herein, by his order dated.110. 81 in TR.No.19/8 1. The Tahsildar-Record Officer, was of the view that the appellant failed to prove that he was a cultivating tenant of the land in question.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant herein preferred AP.No.24 of 1981 before the Appellate Authority, who was the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. We may point out here that the appeal lies both on facts and on law and the Appellate Authority is entitled to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and come to his own conclusion. Accordingly, the appellate Authority framed the following points for determination:-

.(1) Whether the respondents as the owners of the suit land are in possession of it and doing personal cultivation?

.(2) Whether the appellant holds a right of tenancy in respect of the suit land at least by way of implied or oral agreement with the landlord (Respondents)?

and considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties and ultimately held as follows:

“In the light of the discussions above, this court holds that the respondents failed to establish that they have been in physical possession of the suit land and they h