Madras High Court
N.Karuppusamy vs The District Collector on 6 July, 2021
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.15864 of 2018 and
W.M.P.No.18865 of 2018
N.Karuppusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sulur Taluk, Sulur.
4.A.Thangaraj ... Respondents
(R4 is impleaded as per order dated 06.07.2021
in W.M.P.No.37064 of 2018)
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in
the name of the Temple Sri Dharmakottai Arulmigu Sri Santhana
Karupparayan Thirukkoil, Sengathurai for the 2.00 acres Punja land situated
in S.No.81, as per the recommendation of the 3rd respondent dated
27.10.2016 and to protect the usage of Rasipalayam - Senthurai metal road
for public.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.Richardson Wilson
Counsel for Government
For 4th Respondent : Mr.J.Antony Jesus
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to issue patta in the name of the Temple Sri Dharmakottai
Arulmigu Sri Santhana KarupparayanThirukkoil, Sengathurai for the 2.00
acres Punja land situated in S.No.81, as per the recommendation of the 3rd
respondent dated 27.10.2016 and to protect the usage of Rasipalayam -
Senthurai metal road for public.
2.The petitioner though filed as an individual writ petitioner, he
claimed to be the in-charge of the Temple called Sri Dharmakottai Arulmigu
Sri Santhana Karupparayan Thirukkoil, Sengathurai. According to the
petitioner, a landed property to the extent of 2.00 acres i.e., Punja land
situated at S.No.81 in the said village had been in possession and enjoyment
of the Temple and in this regard, the 3rd respondent had issued a memo on
17.11.2002 with regard to the possession and subsequently, on 27.10.2016,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
the 3rd respondent has sent a detailed recommendatory order stating that,
the petitioner had been in possession of 38 cents in S.No.372 part.
3.On the strength of the said report submitted by the 3rd respondent,
the petitioner had given representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on
26.05.2018 separately seek for patta for the said land i.e., for 2 acres in
S.No.81 to and in favour of the petitioner i.e., the Temple mentioned above
and since the said representation was not considered by the Revenue
Authorities i.e., the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition with the aforesaid prayer.
4.When the case is called, there is no representation for the petitioner.
However, the private respondent, who has been impleaded in this writ
petition, had filed a miscellaneous petition seeks for impleadment on the
ground that, insofar as the said S.No.81 is concerned, since it had been
subdivided to various survey numbers like S.No.81/1A, 1B etc., where, in
respect of some of the sub divided lands viz., S.No.81/1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C,
3A, 3B and 4C, the impleaded respondent claimed ownership and therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
if at all any claim is made by the petitioner to seek for patta to the entire
land for 2 acres, the private respondent being the owner should be heard, the
learned counsel submitted.
5.He has further stated that, the petitioner claimed ownership of the
land in question in the name of the Temple, based on an unregistered gift
deed dated 13.08.1962 for an extent of 2 acres, which, according to the
learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, is a fraudulent document
as it does not have any legal sanctity to act upon.
6.He would further submit that, insofar as the report dated 27.10.2016
issued by the 3rd respondent is concerned, the said report is a Partisan
report given by the 3rd respondent for obvious reasons or the reasons best
known to them, as absolutely there is no proof to show that, any point of
time, the petitioner or on behalf of the Temple, as he claimed, had been in
possession and enjoyment of the property, especially, in S.No.81 as well as
S.No.372. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any right to claim patta
for the land in question and therefore, his plea made in this regard given by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
way of representation to the Revenue Authorities i.e., the respondents herein
are liable to be rejected, he contended.
7.On the other hand, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Government
Counsel appearing for the official respondents has relied upon the following
averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent.
"5.I submit that S.F.No.81 is a patta land and as per 'A'
Register the land originally belongs to private parties. The
S.F.No.81 was subdivided as 81/1A, which belongs to
Chinnakannan, S.F.No.81/1B belongs to V.Palani, S.No.81/1C
belongs to Govindan, S.No.81/2A belongs to Chinna Kannan,
81/2B belongs to Karuppan, 81/2C belongs to Raman, 81/2D
belongs to Jose, 81/2E belongs to Sundaram, 81/3A belongs to
Muthulakshmi and 81/4B belongs to Bharath Mohan, 81/4C
belongs to Palani, and thereafter due to settlement's between
the parties the name of the following persons is found in
Adangal. The lands in S.F.No.81/1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B,
4C in the name of Thangaraj, 81/1C, 2D, 4A, 4B in the name of
Arul Jothi and 81/2E belongs to Sundaram and it was
mentioned as they were cultivating corns in the said field. The
total extent of S.No.81 is 2 hectares and 22 cents the land other
than 30 feet is excluded and all other portions belongs to
private individuals.
6.I submit that as per the revenue records in S.No.81 the said
Ramachandran Rao, S/o.Subbarayan name does not find any
entry in the A-Registry and the gift deed mentioned by the
petitioner dated 16.8.1962 is not a registered deed. There is no
proof that the land belongs to the said Ramachandran Rao as
mentioned by the petitioner in the affidavit.
7.I submit that in the S.No.372, which is located in River
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
Poromboke land to and extent of 0.38 cents and from S.No.372
to S.No.81, 30 feet road exist but the temple authorities does
not produce any valid proof regarding their rights in S.No.81
and S.No.81 belongs to private persons.
8.I submit that it has been cleared mentioned in the certificate
issued by the Tahsildar, Sulur, dated 21.10.2016 that the
S.No.312/part only and in which 32 cents of the said temple is
in possession and the land in S.F.No.372 is a River Poromboke
and thereby no patta can be issued.
9.I further submit that the S.F.No.81 belongs to private
persons and the temple name does not find any entry in
revenue records and thereby patta cannot be issued in the
name of the temple pertaining to S.No.81."
8.By relying upon these averments made by the 3rd respondent in the
counter affidavit, the learned Government Counsel would submit that,
insofar as property at S.No.372 is concerned, it has been classified as 'River
Poromboke'. Therefore, the question of giving patta to any individual at
S.No.312/part does not arise, in view of the extant rule in this regard and
various judgments passed by this Court, as the said land being a River
Poromboke and has been classified as 'Water body'. Therefore, patta sought
for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Insofar as the S.No.81 is concerned,
as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, it has
been subdivided into various lands at various Survey Numbers viz., 81/1A,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4C and each of the subdivided survey number
belongs to individual Pattadars. Therefore, those lands are patta lands and in
the said land, absolutely there is no scope for enjoyment on the part of the
petitioner at any point of time as no such records are available with the
Revenue Authorities and the petitioner also had not produced any document
to establish the legal right of the petitioner or the Temple claiming right
over the property in question at S.No.81, except the unregistered gift deed
dated 13.08.1962. Therefore, the said unregistered gift deed dated
13.08.1962 cannot have any weightage under the legal scrutiny to claim
ownership or possession of the property concerned, since the property at
S.No.81 as stated above belongs to various individuals. Therefore, the
learned Government Counsel appearing for the official respondents would
submit that, the plea raised by the petitioner through the representation
dated 26.05.2018 made to these official respondents are untenable and not
to be considered. Therefore, the said prayer cannot be granted and no patta
as claimed by the petitioner can be issued, hence, the writ petition is liable
to be rejected, he contended.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
9.I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the official respondents as well as the private respondent.
10.As has been rightly pointed out by them, the S.No.372 is a River
Poromboke like that S.No.81 is a patta land and subsequently, it has been
subdivided into various Survey Numbers viz., 81/1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A,
3B, 4C and in respect of some of the subdivided property, the 4th
respondent is the owner and he has claimed for ownership and that
possession has not been disputed by the official respondents as of now.
11.Be that as it may, the claim of the petitioner is that, either in his
name or in the name of the Temple, he wants patta. Whether he or the
Temple is entitled to claim any patta in S.No.81 or S.No.372 are concerned,
there is absolutely no document except to say that, an unregistered gift deed
said to have been given by one Ramachandra Rao, as that will not confer
any title either to the petitioner or to the Temple. Therefore, with the
strength of the unregistered gift deed, the petitioner or the Temple cannot
claim any ownership of the property and moreover, the said land at S.No.81
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
since belongs to various individuals, the present plea to give patta to the
extent of 2 acres in the said S.No.81 as claimed by the petitioner through his
representation dated 26.05.2018 cannot be expected to be considered in his
favour, therefore, such a mandamus, this Court is not inclined to issue to
and in favour of the petitioner against the official respondents to consider
his representation dated 26.05.2018. In that view of the matter and for the
reasons stated above, the prayer sought for herein cannot be granted and the
writ petition thus fails, accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Sgl
To
1.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sulur Taluk, Sulur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sgl
W.P.No.15864 of 2018
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
