ORDER :

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the 3rd respondent's impugned Order in e.f.M. 4/18736/2009 dated 19.07.2011 to quash the same as illegal and consequently confirm the 2nd respondent's order in Nk.K.vz;.7/2007 (Pudukkottai), dated 23.03.2009.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the 3rd respondent herein, under which he has reversed the order of the 2nd respondent and restored the order of the 1st respondent passed under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Right Act, 1969.

2. The writ petitioner is the landlord. The respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition have filed an application before the 1st respondent herein to record themselves as a cultivating tenant. The 4th respondent claimed to be a cultivating tenant of 12 acres in Survey No.24/1C out of 13.47 acres. The 5th respondent herein claimed to be a tenant for an extent of 1.47 acres in Survey No.24/1C. The 5th respondent further claimed that he is the tenant of an extent of 7.37 acres in Survey No.225/1 and for an extent of 1.39 acres in Survey No.35/2 in Panampatti Village, Illuppur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

3. After hearing the writ petitioner/landlord and the respondents 4 and 5 herein, the 1st respondent was pleased to allow the application and recorded the respondents 4 and 5 as the cultivating tenants of the above said property by an order, dated 16.05.2007 in R.T.R.No.3/2006.

4. Aggrieved over the same, the writ petitioner/landlord filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent herein in appeal no.7 of 2007. The Revenue Court reversed the order passed by the 1st respondent and dismissed the application filed by the respondents 4 and 5 herein. The respondents 4 and 5 filed a revision before the 3rd respondent herein on 20.05.2009. After hearing both the parties, the revision petition was allowed on 19.07.2011. Under the said impugned order, the 3rd respondent has reversed the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein and restored the order of the 1st respondent. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/landlord had contended that the respondents 4 and 5 herein are not in possession or enjoyment of the survey numbers in dispute. They were never the cultivating tenants of the said property. The petitioner himself is in personal occupation of the above said survey numbers. There is no written lease agreement or any contract between the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 herein. He further contended that at no point of time, the lease amount was ever paid by the respondents 4 and 5 to the writ petitioner. The respondents 4 and 5 herein being adjacent land owners are attempting to compel the petitioner to alienate the properties in their favour. Only in order to compel the petitioner, the respondents 4 and 5 have filed such an application before the 1st respondent herein to record themselves as a cultivating tenant.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that when the respondents 4 and 5 themselves are landlords of the adjacent property, it is not believable that they are the cultivating tenants of the adjacent property. Taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner is an absentee landlord and carrying out cultivating operations through a manager, the respondents 4 and 5 are attempting to usurp the property of the writ petitioner. He further contended that no records have been placed by the respondents 4 and 5 to establish that they have ever paid any lease amount to the landlord. He further contended that the 2nd respondent after proper appreciation of the factual aspects, has arrived at a finding that the respondents 4 and 5 have not established that they are the cultivating tenants. However, the 3rd respondent without properly appreciating the documents, has allowed the revision a