The revisional authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969 has the power to decide the case on merits while deciding on the orders of remittance. However, the revisional authority's finding should be based on reasons and evidence.

Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent revisional authority under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act”, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “Record of Tenancy Rights Act”) holding that the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner had purchased an agricultural land of an extent of 1.77 acres in S. No. 76/4 at Ariyamangalam Village, Tiruchy Taluk and District, from one Pankajathammal and one Renganaki Ammal for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed dated 27.1.1982. The petitioner alleging that the fourth respondent had attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with respect to the said land, filed O.S. No. 159/83 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichy, and the said suit was dismissed. On appeal in A.S. No. 341/83, the learned District Judge, Trichy, set aside the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 159/83 and allowed the appeal; aggrieved by which, the fourth respondent preferred S.A. No. 454 of 1984 before this Court. This Court, by judgment dated 24.8.1984, held that the plaintiff therein, i.e., the petitioner herein was in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. Since the appellate Judge had gone into the question whether the defendant in the suit, namely, the fourth respondent herein was a cultivating tenant or not which should be decided only by the competent authorities constituted under the Tamilnadu Record of Tenancy Act, this Court further observed that the question as to whether the fourth respondent herein (the defendant in the suit) was a cultivating tenant or not, was left open to the competent authority, to decide. Accordingly, this Court, by a decree and judgment dated 24.8.1984, held that the petitioner had proved possession on the date of the suit, and that he would be entitled for injunction, as prayed for. Thereafter, in the light of the observation of this Court in a decree and judgment dated 24.8.1984 made in S.A. No. 454 of 1984, the fourth respondent had filed an application before the Record Officer, namely the third respondent herein, to enter his name as a cultivating tenant. The Record Officer found that there was no sufficient evidence to enter the name of the fourth respondent as a cultivating tenant, and dismissed the application filed by the fourth respondent, by order dated 4.10.1988, aggrieved by which, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, Special Deputy Collector, Salem, the second respondent herein, in T.R.A. Appeal No. 11/88 and the second respondent, appellate authority observed that the fourth respondent filed documents namely A1 to A4, pocket notebooks, to show that the fourth respondent was tenant under the predecessor in title and A5 to A7 were adangal extracts to show that the fourth respondent is a cultivating tenant and A8 to A12 were again pocket notebooks to show that the fourth respondent was cultivating tenant under the predecessor in title. However, taking note of the fact that thereafter no entry is made against the column “cultivation by tenants or owner” in the adangal extracts, and for the reason that the predecessors in title were not examined, the appellate authority, by order dated 6.5.1991, set aside the order of the third respondent and remitted the matter.

3. Aggrieved by the order of remittance dated 6.5.1991 of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent, the revisional authority.

4. The revisional authority, by order dated 12.1.1993, which is impugned in the above writ petition, took notice of Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 and A8 to A12 and the evidence of PW2, namely, the son of the petitioner, and found that the fourth respondent is the cultivating tenant, and directed the Record Officer, third respondent, to enter the name of the fourth respondent as