Munuswamy Mudaliar vs Adimoola Mudaliar and Another

Balasubrahmanyan, J.—The revision raises a question of jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu cultivating Tenants Protection Act, XXV of

1955.

One Adimoolam of Chinnakangayanoor village in Tiruvannamalai Taluk, North Arcot District filed a Petition for a declaration that he was a

cultivating tenant under one Munuswami Mudaliar of an extent of 2 acres and 15 cents of wet land in that village. He also filed an application for an

interim injunction against Munuswami Mudaliar pending disposal of the main Petition.

The Petition, numbered as C.T.P. No. 3 of 1978, and the interlocutory application for interim injunction, were moved before the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai. This Officer entertained the proceedings and passed an interim injunction. While doing so, he purported to

invoke Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

In this revision, Munuswami Mudaliar has raised a point of jurisdiction. The contention put forward before me is two-fold: (i) that the Revenue

Divisional Officer is not the authority, who is vested with jurisdiction under the Act for these proceedings; and (ii) in any case, the jurisdiction u/s

3(1) of the Act does not extend to passing an order of injunction.

The second contention needs no elaborate argument for acceptance. Whatever may be the powers conferred by the Cultivating Tenants

Protection Act u/s 3(1) passing of orders of injunction is not one of them. The injunction granted against Munuswami Mudaliar must, therefore, be

set aside.

The other contention denying to the Revenue Divisional Officer any jurisdiction at all under the Act needs a little more elaborate examination.

Revenue Divisional Officers would ordinarily have jurisdiction to entertain bear and determine applications under the Cultivating Tenants

Protection Act, but the State Government has power to confer this jurisdiction on any other officers of the Revenue Department of equal or

superior rank. This is the effect of Section 2(h) of the Act. This enabling provision is some what out of place in the definition section, but there it is,

and it reads as under:

Revenue Divisional Officer, means the Revenue Divisional Officer in whose jurisdiction the holding in question or part thereof is situate or an officer

of the Revenue Department not lower in rank than the Revenue Divisional Officer, empowered by the State Government in this behalf.

The use of the expression or in the provision does not mean that as respects one and the same area, where the holdings in question are situate,

concurrent or parallel jurisdiction can be exercised both by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as such, and by the other officer of the Revenue

Department of equal or superior rank empowered by the State Government. The clear implication of the provision, on the contrary, is that the

State Government''s action investing another revenue official of equal or superior rank with jurisdiction deprives forthwith and by its own force the

jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer. If overlap of jurisdiction were intended, one would expect further express provisions in the Act

governing the distribution of business area-wise or otherwise as between the Revenue Divisional Officer and the other Officer empowered by the

State Government operating over the same region. Far from the expression or being regarded as a conjunctive, it has not merely to be read as a

disjunctive but must be read as substitutive.

Learned Counsel for Munuswami Mudaliar brought to my notice a State Government notification which confers on the Authorized Officer (Land

Reforms), Kancheepuram jurisdiction under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act over holdings in North Arcot District. This Notification is G.O.

Ms. No. 2195, dated 26th October, 1976. It is not suggested that the Authorized Officer (Land Reforms) is lower in rank than a Revenue

Divisional Officer. It follows, therefore, that from 26th October, 1976 no Revenue Divisional Officer in North Arcot District can exercise any

jurisdiction under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Tiruvannamalai, was in error in entertaining. Adimoolam''s Petition dated 3rd October 1978 purporting to do so u/s 3(1) of the Act. It is needless

to add that he had no jurisdiction whatever to pass any order therein such as the one he passed for an interim injunction of 7th October, 1978.

In the result, the civil revision Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.T.P. No. 3 of 1978 before the said Revenue Divisional Officer

are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.