Application filed for modification of entries made in approved record held not maintainable.

A.R. Lakshmanan, J.

1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Swamikkannu,J., in W.P.No. 6032/81 dated 3.5.1988, dismissing the W.P. filed by the appellant Devasthanam holding that modification of approved Record was not possible under S.5(2) of Act 10 of 1969 (T.N.Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act) that such modification of the record was possible only in certain specified cases, such as a) modification of entry in such record either by reason of death of any person, b)by reason of the transfer of interest of the death of any person, c)by reason of the transfer of interest by reason of any other subsequent change. The learned Judge also held that there is no provision in the Act to delete the names already recorded in the approved Record of Tenancy Rights. It is also held that since the appellant who ought to have preferred their objections under S.3(7) before the Record of Tenancy was approved have failed to do so and since there is no provision to delete the names of any tenants from the approved Record of Tenancy Rights, the application in Form-7 was not maintainable.

2. The short facts which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

3. The appellant is the owner of the land measuring 1.34 acres in R.S.No.333 at Vanian Karambai, Patteeswarm, Thanjavur District. The appellant filed a petition in Form V in 250/74 before the 3rd respondent herein praying for the exclusion of the above said land from the final records prepared and published for the village mentioning the said land as under the tenancy cultivation of the 4th respondent. The appellants contention is that the said land is not under the cultivation of the 4th respondent as a tenant as he is only the lessee of the usufructs of the coconut trees. The appellant filed Exhibit P.l, Auction Notice, Exhibit P-2, Auction Register and also Exhibit P-5, the Lease Deed, Account books of the temple were also filed. Besides, two witnesses were also examined on their side. According to the appellant, both the documents and the oral evidence establish beyond doubt that the lease was in respect of the usufructs of the coconut trees and not in respect of the land. The 4th respondent examined the witnesses on his side to prove that he has been cultivating the land also and that therefore the lease was in respect of the land only. The 3rd respondent came to a conclusion in favour of the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent further held that the Temple Authorities did not object to dry crop cultivation all these years which amounts to permission and held that the appellant is estopped from questioning the same. The 3rd respondent eventually dismissed the petition.

4. The appellant filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent who dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Records of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred as the Act) to delete the name already recorded in the approved Record of Tenancy Right.

5. The appellant filed Revision Petition R.P.No.32/79 against the above said order be fore the 1st respondent herein. The appellant contended, inter alia, that the 2nd respondent erred in stating that the Application is not maintainable and that the appellant ought to have preferred his objections before the Record of Tenancy Right was approved. It is further con tended that the 2nd respondent failed to see that there is a provision for deletion of name in the Act, and that the 2nd respondent failed to see that the land comprised in the Survey Number in question is a thope comprising of cocoanut trees, that such thope has been excluded from the purview of the Act. It is submitted that the 1st respondent has erred in casting the burden on the appellant to prove that the lease deed, Exhibit P-5 is a genuine document, whereas the burden is on the 4th respondent to prove that he did not execute the document. The 1st respondent also erred in relying upon a portion of the oral e