The Appellate Authority's decisions based on presumed fraud, without substantial evidence, are unsustainable; prior tenancy records must be challenged through established procedures.

JUDGMENT :

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

This intra-Court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.1849 of 2010 dated 29.04.2014, wherein, the Writ Court has confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of registration of Respondent No.4 as Cultivating Tenant, under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, in A.P.No.2 of 2009 dated 18.12.2009.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows:

The lands in Survey No.174, 173/1B measuring 2 Acres and 44 Cents in Thallakulam Village, Madurai North, belong to Sooraveli Subbier Trust. These lands were equally divided into two portions and one portion of subject property in this proceedings was in possession of one Gnanam @ Gnanambal, W/o.Vedamuthu as a cultivating tenant. After her death, one Abraham, as one of the legal heirs of the said Gnanam @ Gnanambal, started cultivating and his name was also recorded under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Record of Tenancy Rights Act'). Subsequently, the writ petitioner has entered into an agreement with the said Abraham and her name was entered as a cultivating tenant as per the proceedings in T.R.No. 24 of 1988 on the file of the Tahsildar under the Record of Tenancy Rights Act in the year 1988. This was not questioned by Abraham and thereafter, in the year 1996, Abraham approached the Registering Authority to include his name in the Register as a cultivating tenant. After due enquiry, proceedings initiated by Abraham in T.R.No.36 of 1996 was dismissed and thereafter, he approached the Appellate Authority, Revenue Court of Madurai and filed an appeal in A.P.No.2 of 2009. The Appellate Authority has considered the case of the parties and held that there is impersonation before the Original Authority in the enquiry held in the year 1988 and the order in T.R.No.24 of 1988 was obtained without verification of proper identity of the persons and no documents were marked during the enquiry and the writ petitioner was not a cultivating tenant under the Trust. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority has set aside the orders passed in T.R.No.24 of 1988 and T.R.No.36 of 1996 and thereby, directed the competent authority to record the name of Abraham as a cultivating tenant.

2.1. The writ petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.1849 of 2010 and contended that without any evidence placed on record and without any proper pleadings before the Original Authority, the Appellate Authority has held that there is impersonation and no proper enquiry was held by the Original Authority. He has also held that the order in T.R.No.24 of 1988 was passed by playing fraud on the Registering Authority in the year 1988. The Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the available evidence placed on record before the Original Authority in T.R.No.24 of 1988 and the various documents produced regarding the recognition of the writ petitioner as a cultivating tenant and thereby, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is perverse and not sustainable.

3. The learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the materials placed on record and after hearing the parties, has accepted the order of the Appellate Authority that the appearance of Abraham before the Original Authority in the enquiry held in the year 1988 is doubtful and the entries made in the record are non-est and thereby, confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority and dismissed the Writ Petition.

4. Aggrieved over