Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.- The constitutional validity of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955) is challenged in this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Sub-Collector, Dindigul, dated 17th April, 1956, who acting under section 4 of the Act directed the restoration of the second respondent, Rakkappan Servai, to the possession of certain lands belonging to the petitioner.

The land which forms the subject-matter of the dispute in the present proceedings is of an extent of about 3 acres situated in the village of Mannadimangalam in Nilakottai taluk. The second respondent claimed that he along with one Ayyaswami Pillai was jointly cultivating these lands under a lease deed executed on their behalf in favour of one Sadasivam Pillai. Their case was that the joint family of the petitioner and his elder brother was the owner of the land and that in or about May, 1953, the petitioner’s elder brother Rajagopala Ayyar now deceased leased the lands to Sadasivam Pillai for a period of one year. Rajagopala Ayyar died in July, 1953 and since then the petitioner has been in management of this property on behalf of his family. The second respondent further stated that he was evicted from the lands in 1954 and one Sengiah Servai was inducted as a tenant. The second respondent filed an application under section 4 of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (which we shall hereafter refer to as the impugned Act) which enables every cultivating tenant, who was in possession of any land on the 1st December, 1953 and who is not in possession thereof at the commencement of this Act. (27th September, 1955) to obtain restoration of possession by application to the Revenue Divisional Officer. This right is, however, subject to certain exceptions set out in section 4(2) of the impugned Act. But it is common ground that none of these latter applied to the second respondent or disabled him from obtaining the order.

Before the Revenue Divisional Officer to whom the second respondent made the application the petitioner contended that the tenant in cultivation of the lands in December, 1953, was not the second respondent or Ayyaswami but Sadasivam Pillai and that Sadasivam Pillai had voluntarily relinquished possession of the lands by May, 1954, he being then in arrears of rent and that the lands had thereafter been leased to Sengiah Servai who had been continuing in possession from 31st May, 1954, onwards. Evidence was led on behalf of the two parties and the Revenue Divisional Officer found that it was Rakkappa Servai, the second Respondent, who was in actual cultivation of the lands in 1953-54, that is, on the crucial date. On this finding the petition was allowed and the restoration of the second respondent to the lands in dispute ordered. It is the validity of this order that is challenged in this writ petition.

Two grounds have been put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner in challenge of the validity of this order of the first respondent, the Sub-Collector of Dindigul. The first was that the impugned Act and section 4 were repugnant to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and were therefore unenforceable and the second, that the first respondent, officer, had failed to follow the procedure prescribed by section 4(4) of the Act and that the order for restoration was consequently invalid.

We consider it convenient to dispose of the second ground first before dealing with the more important objection raised to this order. Section 4(4) prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on receipt of an application from a cultivating tenant who claims restoration to possession of the land of which he was in possession on 1st December, 1953. The sub-section runs thus:

“S.4(4)-On receipt of an application under sub-section (3) the Revenue Divisional Officer shall after giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant, if any,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document