Revision against the order to be filed u/s 7.

The subject matter of the dispute in the writ petition relates to a punja land in R.S.95/6 of an extent of 18 cents in Kuruvadi village, Nannilam taluk, Thanjavur district. The writ petitioner has filed an application before the second respondent under Sec.5 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Record of Tenancy Rights Act’) to delete the name of the first respondent from the record of the tenancy rights for the said village, maintained in the office of the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the land in question is a dry land used only for tethering cattle and for storage of hay-rick, and the land was never used for cultivation or horticulture and hence, the land does not fall within the definition of the lands under Sec.2(4) of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act. The entry in the record of tenancy rights found in favour of the first respondent to the effect that he was a tenant in respect of the said land was made, according to the petitioner, without his knowledge and hence, alter coming to know of the same, he has filed the application under Sec.5 of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act before the second respondent for the deletion of his name.

2. The first respondent resisted the said application on the ground that the disputed property as well as another extent of 2 acres of nanja land were taken on lease by his father Rajangam and the first respondent and the members of his family were cultivating the disputed land.

3. The second respondent conducted due enquiry, heard the parties and held that the claim of the petitioner was bona fide and directed the deletion of the name of the first respondent as a tenant from the record of tenancy rights maintained by the second respondent.

4. The first respondent preferred an appeal before the third respondent challenging the order of the second respondent. The third respondent after due consideration of the entire matter, recorded a finding to the effect that it was not proved that the erstwhile trustee Neelamegam Pillai was served with a notice before the name of the first respondent was recorded as a tenant. The third respondent further held that there was no evidence to show that there was cultivation of a the land in question, and on the basis of the report of the Village Administrative Officer, it was made clear that the land was used only as brick-kiln. In this view of the matter, the third respondent held that the first ‘respondent has not proved that there was a lease in his favour of agricultural lands, and there was no evidence to show that the first respondent has cultivated the land in question.

5. The first respondent preferred a revision before the fourth respondent, who is the revisional authority. The revisional authority found that the application filed by the petitioner was under Sec.5 of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act, and he held that the application under Sec.5 of the Act for the modification of the entries in the approved record of tenancy rights would lie, where by reason of death, or transfer of interest, or any other subsequent change in the circumstances, a modification is required in respect of record of tenancy rights. The Revisional Authority held that the case put forward by the writ petitioner did not fall within any of the contingencies prescribed under Sec.5 of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act. and hence, he took a view that the application under Sec.5 of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act was not maintainable in law. He further held that the first respondent has cultivated the land. He placed reliance upon the documentary evidence Exs.R-3 and R-4 to come to the conclusion that the first respondent had cultivated the land. The Revisional Authority held that if the writ petitioner intends to evict the first respondent, he should take proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955). In this view of the matter, he al