Grant of stay is incidental to powers provided for disposal of appeal.

Against the order of the interim stay granted by the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Tirunelveli/first respondent herein, staying the orders of the Tahsildar, Ambasamudram/2nd respondent herein, in T.R.No.37 of 1995 dated 18.6.1996, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a cultivating tenant in respect of 4 acres and 30 cents of land in Survey No.806/10 of Keelakadayam village, Ambasamudram taluk. He filed a petition under Sec.5 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 (Act 10 of 1969) read with Rule 11 of the Rules before the second respondent/Record Officer/Tahsildar, Ambasamudram. The third respondent herein contested the matter. After enquiry, the second respondent by an order made in proceedings dated 18.6.1996 declared the petitioner as a cultivating tenant and directed his name to be recorded as a cultivating tenant in the approved Record of Tenancy in respect of 3.30 acres alone which was found to be in his possession. Aggrieved by the abovesaid order of the second respondent, the third respondent has preferred an appeal under Sec.6 of the said Act. The first respondent/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Tirunelveli has granted an order of ex parte interim stay of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 7.8.1996. The said order of the first respondent granting stay is totally without jurisdiction and hence illegal and liable to be quashed.

3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the stay order passed by him is within the provisions of the powers of the appellate authority under Sec.6 of the said Act. As an appellate authority, he is empowered to grant interim stay. Further, the appellant therein represented that he has raised cotton and coconut in the lands and that they have to be protected till their harvest and requested interim stay. The said aspect has been corroborated by the Village Administrative Officer. In such a circumstance, in order to protect the crops raised by him the stay of operation of the order of the Tenancy Officer is necessary.

4. The third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the writ petition filed against the interim order is not maintainable and if the petitioner has any grievance, he is only to move the first respondent for vacation of the stay order. It is further stated that the appellate authority has merely stayed the recording of entry to be made by the 2nd respondent in his books. The petitioner is not in possession of his (3rd respondents) lands either as a cultivating tenant or otherwise. The first respondent is also competent authority and empowered to grant stay till the appeal is disposed of by him.

5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.

6. The only question that is to be decided is whether the appellate authority under the Act has power to grant stay of the order impugned pending disposal of the appeal.

7. In view of the limited question, it is unnecessary to refer the other factual aspects. There is no dispute that aggrieved by the order of the second respondent Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Ambasamudram dated 18.6.1996 directing the name of the petitioner to be recorded as a cultivating tenant in the approved Record of Tenancy, the third respondent herein filed an appeal before the first respondent and also prayed for stay of operation of the order of the second respondent. The said appeal was filed under Sec.6 of the Act 10 of 1969. There is no dispute regarding maintainability of the appeal before the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner after taking me through the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, would contend that in the absence of any specific provision for grant of stay, the impugned order granting stay by the first respondent cannot be sustained. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate as well as the conte