Madras High Court

Vengulakshmi vs Tamil Nadu State Represented By on 10 December, 2021

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

1. Vengulakshmi
2. Muthulakshmi (Died)
3. Vengulakshmi
4. Yamuna (R5 of W.P.)
(P3 and P4 Brought on Record
as Lr's of the Deceased Second Petitioner
vide order dated 29.09.2021
made in W.M.P.No.21157 of 2021
in W.P.No.30406 of 2008) ... Petitioners

-Vs-

1. Tamil Nadu State represented by
Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600005.

2. The District Revenue Officer and
District Addl. Presiding Officer,
Erode.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharapuram,
Erode.
4. Natarajan
5. Yamuna ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 12
W.P.No.30406 of 2008

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records in Reference Rc.No.29285/2006 C1 dated 18.05.2007 on the file of the
second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to restore the
patta No.229 granted under Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and
Conversion) into Ryotwari Act 1963 in respect of the lands comprised in
Survey Nos.11/4, 12/3, 35, 36/1, 36/2, 82/1, 83/1 and 84 situated at Molarapatti
Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District of an extent of 15.21.5 hectares
equivalent to 37.58 acres in favour of the petitioner and fifth respondent.

For Petitioners : Mr.RMD.Rajagopal for
Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham and
Mr.K.Boopalan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham
Special Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.N.Ponraj

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Reference

Rc.No.29285/2006 C1 dated 18.05.2007 on the file of the second respondent

and quash the same and direct the respondents to restore the patta No.229

granted under Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion) into

Ryotwari Act 1963 in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.11/4, 12/3,

35, 36/1, 2, 82/1, 83/1 and 84 situated at Molarapatti Village, Dharapuram https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

Taluk, Erode District to an extent of 15.21.5 hectares equivalent to 37.58 acres

in favour of the petitioner and fifth respondent.

2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the Doraisamy Ayyangar. In

pursuant to the application filed by their father, to the Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowment Board at Chennai, the learned Assistant Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Dharapuram, passed order

on 13.11.1944 holding that Sri Venkatesa Perumal Koil, Kallivalasu,

Molarapatti Village, Pongalur Thoguthi was exempted under Section 11 and

Section 8(5) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1927 and

said that the temple was not within the purview of Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowment Board. During his lifetime, their father applied for

grant of Ryotwari Patta in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.42 under

the Ryotwari Patta to an extent of 27.57 acres, in Survey No.227/2, to an extent

of 5.11 acres, in Survey No.66/2 part to an extent of 4.68 ½ acres, in Survey

No.99/1 to an extent of 0.62 cents, in Survey No.99/3 to an extent of 12.57

acres and in Survey No.223 to an extent of 12.72 acres in the name of the deity

Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple, Kallivalasu and service inam is in individual

name as Poosari Doraisamy Ayyangar. The Settlement Tahsildar No.III, Erode,

passed an order dated 12.09.1970 and granted patta in favour of their father. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

Thereafter, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

However, the fourth respondent filed an application before the Tahsildar,

raising objections against the grant of patta in favour of their father on the

ground that the Ryotwari Patta should have been granted to the deity of Sri

Varadaraja Perumal Temple, Kallivalasu, but not to the individual. After

examining the documents, the third respondent passed an order that the

petitioner's father was entitled for patta in the individual name also.

3. The fourth respondent has no locus to invoke the jurisdiction of

the Revenue Authority nearly after 24 years to challenge the grant of patta in

the name of their father. Therefore, it is a time barred one under the Tamil

Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion) into Ryotwari Act 1963. It

cannot be reopened by the second respondent and it is not the competent

authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and

Conversion) into Ryotwari Act 1963, to entertain the revision filed by the

fourth respondent. The second respondent ought to have considered the

relevancy of provisions of Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam

(Abolition and Conversion) into Ryotwari Act 1963. Without considering the

same, the second respondent allowed the appeal filed by the fourth respondent

by the impugned order dated 18.05.2007, reversing the order dated 07.03.2005. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

4. Though the petitioners preferred revision before the first

respondent as against the order passed by the second respondent, it was

returned and directed to approach the competent Court of Law for remedy for

the reason that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.409/Revenue SS-1-2, dated 02.07.2008,

since, the Government had withdrawn the provisions of second Revisional

Powers from the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land

Administration on transfer of Registry cases under Revenue Standing Order 31-

5. Mr.RMD.Rajagopal, the learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the fourth respondent has no locus to invoke the jurisdiction of

Revenue Authority after long lapse of 24 years, challenging the grant of patta

in favour of the petitioners' father. It is also a time barred one under the Tamil

Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion) into Ryotwari Act, 1963. He

vehemently contented that the second respondent is not the competent authority

to take as appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and

Conversion) into Ryotwari Act, 1963, to entertain the revision filed by the

fourth respondent. The second respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with

the patta granted by the competent authority.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

6. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of this

Court in 2019-3-LW.103 in the case of "Sennimalai Gounder (Died) & others

Vs. Additional District Magistrate & District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore,

Office of the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and others".

7. The second respondent filed counter and revealed that the fourth

respondent had filed a petition before the second respondent, alleging that

before 2002, the name of the temple i.e. Arulmigu Venkatesa Perumal Temple

was appeared in Patta No.229 to an extent of 15.21.5 hectares in S.F.No.11/4

etc., which were Devadaya Inam lands. The Tahsildar, Dharapuram by an

order dated 09.09.2005, recommended to delete the name of the temple and

allowed to continue in the name of the petitioners.

8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, after conducting the

enquiry on 13.12.2005, recorded the statements of the fourth respondent and

the petitioners along with the Village Administrative Officer, Molarappatti

Village, Dharapuram Taluk and on perusal of the revenue records passed an

order dated 17.03.2006 to include the name of the temple i.e. Kallivalasu

Arulmigu Venkatesa Perumal Kovil along with the name of the petitioners https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

herein, who are the daughters of the said Doraisamy Ayyengar appeared in

Patta No.229 in respect of the property comprised in S.F.Nos. 11/4, 12/3, 35,

36/1, 36/2, 82/1, 83/1 and 84 to an extent of 15.21.5 hectares. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioners filed review before the second respondent alleging that

the third respondent is not the jurisdiction to pass orders in effecting the

changes in the Village Revenue Records. On receipt of the same, the second

respondent conducted an enquiry on 02.02.2007 and passed the order impugned

in this Writ petition.

9. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the

petitioners also filed a suit for permanent injunction as against the fourth

respondent herein in O.S.No.511 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif

Court, Dharapuram in respect of the very same property. The Trial Court held

that the petitioners have no independent right except as Dharmakartha for the

suit property and the fourth respondent is held to be a lessee of the suit

property. Therefore, the petitioners have no independent right over the subject

property and they are not entitled to claim any relief for permanent injunction.

Further, held that the fourth respondent is a lessee to the subject property and

dismissed the suit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

10. Heard, Mr.RMD.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Mr.P.Baladhandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.N.Ponraj, learned counsel

appearing for the fourth respondent.

11. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, as per

Section 9(5) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1927, by

an order dated 13.11.1944 exempted the deity Sri Venkatesa Perumal Koil,

Kallivalasu from the temple land. But during the enactments of the Madras

Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion) into Ryotwari Act, 1963, which

applies to all Minor Inams in the State of Madras. The Assistant Settlement

Officers were appointed under Section 5 of the said Act and having their own

jurisdiction. The Settlement Tahsildar, by an order dated 12.09.1970 included

the name of the temple i.e.Arulmigu Kallivalasu Venkatesa (Varadaraja)

Perumal along with other pattadars. However, aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners' father did not file any appeal to the Inam Tribunal.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of

this Court in 2019-3-LW.103 in the case of "Sennimalai Gounder (Died) & https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

others Vs. Additional District Magistrate & District Revenue Officer,

Coimbatore, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and others".

and this Court held that the Sub-Collector, does not have jurisdiction under the

Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act to initiate the proceedings and cancel the

Ryotwari pattas issued under the statute because the power and jurisdiction, in

this regard, is expressly conferred on the Tribunal i.e. the designated Sub-Court

concerned.

13. As stated supra, as against the order dated 12.09.1970, admittedly,

the petitioners' father did not file any appeal to the tribunal. Therefore, the

petitioners are not entitled for any claim in deleting the name of the deity from

the Patta No.229. That apart, as per the Revenue Standing Order 116(1), the

full exercise of the authority vested in the Collector by the regulations, and

delegable by him to his Sub-Ordinate Officers, is left entirely to the Divisional

Officer within his revenue division.

14. Therefore, the second respondent has got power to pass orders.

Hence, the above judgment cited by the learned counsel for petitioners, is not

helpful to the case on hand. In view of the Judgment passed in O.S.No.511 of

2004, dated 06.07.2012, filed by the petitioners as against the fourth respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

for permanent injunction in respect of the subject property is held as follows,

"The plaintiffs have sought the relief of Permanent Injunction not to disturb with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Under Issue Nos 2 and 3 it has been decided by this Court that the plaintiffs have no independent right except as Dharmakartha for the suit property and the defendant is held to be a lessee of the suit property. So, when it has been decided that the plaintiffs have no independent right in the suit properties they are not entitled to claim the relief of Permanent Injunction. Further as it is held that the defendant is a lessee to the suit properties, the claim of the plaintiffs for Permanent Injunction is hereby declined. Hence, the issue is answered accordingly"

15. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in

the order passed by the second respondent and the writ petition is devoid of

merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

10.12.2021

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order mn

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.30406 of 2008

1. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, The State of Tamil Nadu, of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600005.

2. The District Revenue Officer and District Addl. Presiding Officer, Erode.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, Erode.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis