Madras High Court
A.Pargunnam vs M.Iyyanar on 7 June, 2021
W.A.No.1418 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.06.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
W.A.No.1418 of 2021
and
C.M.P.Nos.8796 & 8799 of 2021
1.A.Pargunnam,
S/o.Ayyanar,
Door No.19B,
Mariamman Kovil Street,
Manakadu, Hasthampatty,
Salem – 7.
2.A.Shanmugam,
S/o.Anai Gounder,
No.16-A, South Street,
Manakadu, Hasthampatty,
Salem Town, Salem – 636 007. ...Appellants
Vs.
1.M.Iyyanar,
S/o.Muthunani Gounder,
Oorgounder/Trustee,
Arulmigu Cheliamman and Mariamman Temple,
Manakadu, Salem – 7.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1418 of 2021
2.The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Salem, Salem District.
4.The Thasildar,
Taluk Office,
TVS Colony, Hasthampatty,
Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, praying to set
aside the order dated 09.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.13165 of 2020 on the file of
this Court and allow the above Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Ilayaperumal
For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan, State
Government Counsel for R2 to R4.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,)
The matter was heard through "Video Conference".
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1418 of 2021
2.Third parties have come before this Court challenging the order passed by
the Learned Single Judge at the instance of the First Respondent who challenged
the proceedings of the Tahsildar, TVS Colony, Hasthampatty, Salem dated
27.02.2020, with regard to the conducting of survey or issuing patta in favour of
any third parties in respect of the temple lands measuring to an extent of 85.6 cents
in Survey No.1358 of Hasthampatty Village, Salem Taluk & District except issuing
patta in the name of the Temple.
3.The case of the First Respondent before the Learned Single Judge is that
the aforesaid property belongs to the Temple and the Temple is having title for the
past seventy five years. However, the third parties are claiming right over the
property and therefore, the First Respondent has come before this Court praying to
forbear the Respondents to conduct survey, pursuant to the notice dated
27.02.2020, which was issued to conduct survey, contending that it is a Temple
property and no third party should be given patta.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1418 of 2021
4.Taking into consideration of the contention of the First Respondent, the
Learned Single Judge directed the First Respondent to give objection along with
relevant documents to the Fourth Respondent/ The Tahsildar, TVS Colony,
Hasthampatty. Further, it is directed that if the Fourth Respondent decides to
conduct any enquiry or survey on the request of the third party, the Writ Petitioner /
First Respondent should be put on notice and he should be heard before taking
decision. Challenging the said order, this Appeal has been filed.
5.Though, Mr.A.Ilayaperumal, Learned Counsel for the Appellants would
submit that the First Respondent / Writ Petitioner is prohibited from acting as
Oorgounder in Hasthampatti Villagae Mitta Survey No.100, Municipal Survey
No.1358 by decree and Judgment dated 19.09.1990, he is still claiming to be the
Oorgounder. He would submit that taking advantage of the order passed by the
Learned Single Judge, the First Respondent should not claim any benefit and hence,
this Appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1418 of 2021
6.Heard Mr.A.Ilayaperumal, Learned Counsel for the Appellants and
Mr.R.Neelakandan, Learned State Government Counsel appearing for the
Respondents 2 to 4.
7.It is seen from the records that the Learned Single Judge has only directed
the First Respondent to give objection along with relevant documents to the Fourth
Respondent/ The Tahsildar, TVS Colony, Hasthampatti and further, it is directed
that if the Fourth Respondent decides to conduct any enquiry or survey on the
request of the third party, the Writ Petitioner / First Respondent should be put on
notice and he should be heard before taking decision. Hence, there is no positive
direction and it is only to accept the objections given by the First Respondent.
When that is the position, the Appellants cannot have any objection with regard to
the directions given by the Learned Single Judge. It is seen that neither positive
direction nor any right has been conferred upon the First Respondent or the right of
the Appellants has been affected.
8.Therefore, the Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. If the Appellants
have got any grievance, they can only give objections regarding the claim of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1418 of 2021
First Respondent and after obtaining the objections from the Appellants as well as
from the First Respondent, the Fourth Respondent shall make a joint enquiry after
giving notice to them as well as to the other parties.
9.With the above directions, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[N.K.K.,J.] [T.V.T.S.,J.]
07.06.2021
ay/sai
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
1.The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Salem, Salem District.
3.The Thasildar,
Taluk Office,
TVS Colony, Hasthampatty,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1418 of 2021
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
AND
T.V.THAMILSELVI , J.
ay
W.A.No.1418 of 2021
Dated:07.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
