ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 by 1st respondent in See.Tha.Pa.02/2011 H-3, confirming the order dated 13.02.2009 passed by Tenancy Rights Registering Appellate Authority/Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Thanjavur in Ku.Vu.P.Me.Mu.02/2009, which was passed confirming the order dated 13.02.2009 passed by Tenancy Rights Registering Officer/Thasildhar, Kumbakonam in Ku.Vu.Pa. Case No. 10/2001 quash the same.

1. The instant writ petition is filed seeking for a Certiorari to quash the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur/the first respondent herein in See.Tha.Pa.02/2011 H-3, dated 10.10.2012 confirming the orders passed by the Tenancy Rights Registering Appellate Authority, the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Thanjavur in Ku.Vu.Pa.Me.Mu.02/2009 dated 13.02.2009 and the Tenancy Rights Registering Officer, the Tahsildar, Kumbakonam in Ku.Vu.Pa. Case No. 10/2001 dated 13.02.2009.

2. Heard Mr. S. Anand Chandrasekar for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. D. Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and M/s. D. Saranya, learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had purchased an agricultural property in S. No. 25/1, measuring an extent of 2.23 acres at Agarathur Village, Kumnakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District from the third respondent through a registered sale deed dated 07.09.2000. The vendor of the petitioner had purchased the property from one Senthilnathan through a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1997. As the land was under the cultivation of the third respondent, at the time of execution of the sale deed, he had requested the petitioner to permit him to harvest the cultivation. Considering his request, the petitioner has permitted him to harvest the crops standing in the land. However, after the harvest, the third respondent was delaying the handing over of the possession of the land to the petitioner. The second respondent, who is the brother of the third respondent, was also instrumental in avoiding to hand over the possession of the land. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit in O.S. No. 510 of 2000. In the said suit, the third respondent remained ex-parte. But however, the second respondent contested the same by claiming that he was a cultivating tenant of the property for the past 11 years.

4. The trial Court upon considering the various oral and documentary evidences rejected the claim of the second respondent that the second respondent was the cultivating tenant and decreed the suit as prayed for. The second respondent being aggrieved against the same, had preferred an appeal suit in A.S. No. 16 of 2004 before the Sub Court, Kumbakonam, which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved against the same, he had preferred a second appeal in S.A. No. 1165 of 2005, which also came to be dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 05.10.2007.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that after filing of the suit, the second respondent to thwart the attempts of the petitioner to recover possession had initiated proceedings before the Tahsildar, who is also the Tenancy Rights Registering Officer to record his tenancy. This Court while dismissing the second appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court as well as the trial Court had held that the findings in the civil suit are without prejudice to the findings to be rendered in the proceedings pending before the Tenancy Rights Registering Officer. Thereafter, the Tahsildar had taken up the claim of the second respondent in RTR No. 10/01.

6. He would further contend that when there is a specific finding of the civil Court as to the status of the second re