Madras High Court
The Executive Officer vs N.Ramesh on 9 July, 2021
W.A.No.1374 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.A. No.1374 of 2011 and
M.P. No.2 of 2011
The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Thiruvengadanathaswamy &
Vaidyanathaswamy Thirukoil,
Sulur, Coimbatore District. ... Appellant
versus
1.N.Ramesh
2.The Sub Registrar,
Sulur Sub-Registrar's Office,
Sulur Taluk,
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order passed in W.P. No.3611 of 2011 dated 14.03.2011 by His
Lordship Mr.Justice P.Jothimani.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Ram
For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan,
Government Advocate for R2
R1-No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1374 of 2011
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by T.RAJA,J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the impugned order
dated 14.03.2011 passed in W.P. No.3611 of 2011, wherein the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition as prayed for issuing
writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
directing the Sub Registrar, Sulur Sub-Registrar's Office, Sulur
Taluk, Coimbatore District to register the sale deed executed on
03.02.2009 in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the land
covered in S.No.405, Kannampalayam Village, Sulur Coimbatore
District without insisting upon any No Objection Certificate.
2.Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submitted that when the land in question covered in
S.No.405, Kannampalayam Village, Sulur Coimbatore District
originally belonged to the appellant's temple Arulmighu
Thiruvengadanathaswamy and Vaidyanathaswamy Thirukoil by
virtue of the order of the Settlement Tahsildar-II, Gobichettipalayam
dated 20.07.1967 which clearly speaks that the appellant is entitled
to Ryotwari patta for the said land bringing the land under Section
8(2)(ii) read with Section 21(3) of Madras Minor Inams (Abolition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1374 of 2011
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963, without even impleading
the appellant temple as one of the necessary parties, the first
respondent, on the basis of the un-registered sale deed dated
02.02.2009 on the file of the second respondent, took out a petition
before this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking writ of mandamus. Continuing his argument, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant pleaded that the land in
question as mentioned above belongs to the appellant temple and at
no point of time, any part of the land has been sold away or
alienated or dispossessed by anyone having authority on behalf of
the temple. While that being the factual position, on the basis of the
un-registered sale deed dated 02.02.2009, the writ petitioner
approached the second respondent for registration. However, the
second respondent, Sub Registrar of Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore
District rightly refused to register the land, entertaining serious
doubt stating that the property belongs to the appellant. Aggrieved
by the denial of registration by the second respondent Sub
Registrar, the first respondent, claiming to be the purchaser of the
land, has approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus. In
support of his submission that the land in question belongs to the
appellant, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, heavily
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1374 of 2011
relying on the order dated 20.07.1967 passed by the Settlement
Tahsildar-II, Gobichettipalayam issued in favour of the appellant
temple, submitted that the writ petition ought not to have been
entertained without impleading the necessary parties namely, the
appellant in the writ petition. He has also brought to our notice to
docket orders dated 03.10.2019 and 04.11.2019 stating that
despite repeated service of notice, the first respondent refused to
appear before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that knowing pretty well that if the appellant is
impleaded, they would be able to expose the weakness and defects
in making out his case for issuing the order of mandamus by the
learned Single Judge, the first respondent, with an ulterior motive,
has chosen not to implead the appellant, who is the competent
authority to be impleaded as a party in the writ petition as the land
in question belongs to the appellant.
3.Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the second respondent supported the case of the appellant on
the ground that the land in question belonged to the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1374 of 2011
4.We are able to see the order of settlement dated
20.07.1967, which is extracted as under, for the sake of
convenience:
'5....I, therefore, hold that the above claimants are
entitled to Ryotwari Patta for these lands. In the
circumstances, I allow Ryotwari Patta in favour of P.Ws.
1 and 2 above in respect of lands specified in the
schedule below under Section 8(2)(ii) read with Section
21(3) of Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act 1963 subject to the following
conditions:
1.The service holder shall subject to the provisions of
sub-sections (3), (4), (6) and (7) of Section 21 be
bound to continue to render the service after the
appointed day.
2.The service holder shall have the option (a) to pay to
the religious institution, the amount specified in sub-
section 4 viz. Twenty times the difference between the
fair rent in respect of such land determined by the
Tahsildar, Tiruppur in accordance with the provisions
contained in the schedule and the land revenue due on
such land and in the event of such payment, the land
shall be discharged from the condition of service.'
5.A mere perusal of the above clearly shows that the land
belongs to the appellant. Therefore, the first respondent has no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1374 of 2011
right whatsoever to approach this Court seeking for writ of
mandamus directing the second respondent to register the above
land, which belongs to the appellant, who has not even alienated or
dis-possessed the said land to anyone at any point of time.
6.In the earlier hearings, there was no representation on
behalf of the first respondent. Even today there is no representation
on his behalf.
7.In view of the above submission made by the learned
counsel for the second respondent and also going through the order
of Settlement, we are of the considered opinion that when the land
belongs to the appellant, the first respondent ought not to have
approached this Court, without impleading the appellant as a party
in the writ petition.
8.For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the
same is set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed.
Consequently, M.P. No.2 of 2011 stands closed. No costs.
[T.R.,J] [P.T.A.,J]
09.07.2021
vga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1374 of 2011
To
The Sub Registrar,
Sulur Sub-Registrar's Office,
Sulur Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1374 of 2011
T.RAJA,J.
and
P.T.ASHA,J.
vga
W.A. No.1374 of 2011 and
M.P. No.2 of 2011
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
