Madras High Court
The Executive Officer vs M/S.Raju Spinning Mills P. Ltd on 9 March, 2021
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
and
W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.2 & 3 of 2010
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011:
The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Vaithiyanathaswamy
Temple, Madavarvalagam,
Srivillipuhur, Virudhunagar District.
... 2nd Respondent/Appellant in both W.As
Vs.
1.M/s.Raju Spinning Mills P. Ltd.,
By its Director, having Office at No.148/1,
Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village,
Vaithilingapuram Post, Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
.... Respondents in both W.As
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
against the order dated 24.02.2010 passed in W.P.Nos.23436 of 2002 and
5640 2008 respectively.
(In both W.As)
For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For R-1 : Mr.G.Masilamani,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Sivaji
For R-2 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar,
Special Government Pleader
W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010:
1.S.M.M.Vadivelu
Represented by Power Agent,
M.K.Subramaniam
2.P.V.Ramasubramania Raja
3.Gurusamy Naidu,
Represented by Power Agent,
M.K.Subramaniam ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The Tahsildar,
Srvilliputtur,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Vaithiyanathasamy Temple,
Madavarvalagam,
Srivilliputtur,
Virudhunagar District.
3.Ochammal ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent
in Nee.Mu.No.B3/318/2000 dated 18.03.2002 and quash the same insofar
as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners: Mr.G.Masilamani
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Sivaji
For R-1 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R-2 : Mr.H.Arumugam,
For R-3 : No Appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
Since the issue raised in the writ appeals and the writ petition are
one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by means
of this common order.
2. W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 are filed challenging the
common order dated 24.02.2010 passed in W.P.No.23436 of 2002 and
W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008 respectively.
3. W.P(MD)No.3475 of 2010, is filed challenging the order passed by
the Tahsildar, Srivilliputtur Taluk, Virudhunagar District in
Nee.Mu.No.B3/318/2000 dated 18.03.2002 and quash the same insofar
as the petitioners are concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
4. In the above writ appeals, Arulmighu Vaithiyanathaswamy
Temple, Madavarvalagam, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, is the
appellant.
5.The dispute revolves around the land situated in
Survey Nos.148/1, 2, 3 and 4 of Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village of
Srivillipuhur Taluk. The said lands to an extent of 7.69 acres, is said to
have been purchased by the first respondent/writ petitioner Raju Spinning
Mills Private Limited from different owners on various dates.
6. The writ petitioner claims that they had purchased the above
mentioned properties for valid consideration from various vendors. After
the purchase, the writ petitioner Mill attempted to get their name entered
into revenue records. Prior to the same, the properties were standing in
the name of the writ petitioner's predecessor in title. The petitioner
claimed that they are the bonafide purchaser for value as the property
had no encumbrance. It is also stated that the writ petitioner had put up
a building and installed machineries for the purpose of running a Spinning
Mill by borrowing loan from financial Institutions and also subjecting the
property as security. While so, according to the writ petitioner Mill, the
appellant temple had taken steps to transfer the patta and patta was
issued in the name of the appellant temple vide proceedings in
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
Nee.Mu.No.B3/318/20000 dated 18.03.2002, which was challenged by
the writ petitioner Spinning Mill in W.P.No.23436 of 2002.
7. The writ petition was resisted by the temple on various grounds.
It is the specific case of the temple that all the lands in
Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk are Minor Inam lands
and these lands were granted to Sthalasthars, who were rendering service
to the temple. Title Deed No.503 was also executed by the Inam
Commissioner in recognition of the grant of inam to Sthalasthars.
8. It is an admitted fact that the lands were Minor Inam lands
granted to the Sthalasthars on condition of rendering service to the
temple. The service holder shall continue to render service to the temple.
So long as the service holder renders service, he shall be entitled to
occupy the lands in respect of which he is entitled to a patta under
Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). While the facts
remain so, in the year 1942-1943, these service inamdars said to have
alienated the property by executing sale deeds in favour of various
persons. One such person is one Periyasamy Nadar, who had sold the
property to the first respondent/writ petitioner Mill. As the original service
inamdars had sold the property, the District Collector, Sivakasi, ordered
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
resumption of the lands that were sold irrespective of the 'Melwaram' and
'Kudiwaram' vide proceedings in ROC E.4533/32 and ROC E.7794/52 in
respect of Title Deed No.503. Challenging the said resumption order, the
alienees had filed suits in O.S.Nos.3, 5, to 10, 12 to 20 and 22 of 1954
before the District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, for declaration that the
grant was only for a 'Melwaram'. All the said suits were dismissed holding
that both warams were granted in Inam Lands and that the District
Collector had the right of resumption on account of the alienation made
by the inamdars.
9. Against the said judgments dated 25.04.1955,
A.S.Nos.110 to 114, 116 and 134 of 1955 before the Sub-Court, Ramnad,
were filed. The temple also filed A.S.No.115 of 1955. All the appeals
ended in dismissal on 25.08.1956. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by
the appellate Court, S.A.Nos.126 to 129, 131 to 133 of 1957 were filed
and they were also dismissed on 15.08.1960. In the interregnum, the
Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act
1963/Act 30 of 1963, came into force. The judgment passed in the
second appeals were again put to challenge in L.P.A.Nos.21 to 26 of 1961,
which were also dismissed. Thus, the order of resumption was confirmed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
10. After advent of the Act 30 of 1963, the temple had applied for
Ryotwari patta, which was originally granted and later it was remanded by
the Inam Abolition Tahsildhar to the Court of Settlement Tahsildhar,
Kovilpatti in R.A.No.623/1969 vide order dated 16.12.1970 for fresh
enquiry and disposal according to law for issuance of Ryotwari patta in
respect of the lands situate in Padikkasuvaithanpatti village. The temple
was the petitioner and there were about 219 respondents, who were
represented through counsel, had made their submissions, wherein the
32nd respondent was the Periyasamy Nadar from whose heirs, the writ
petitioner Spinning Mill had purchased the properties. Before the
Settlement Tahsildhar, the alienees from the service holders had claimed
patta in their favour on the ground that all the lands are in their
possession and the temple had not claimed any service from the land
owners for the temple for the last 100 years and there was no service
alleged to have been rendered to the temple. As the lands are in their
uninterrupted possession and enjoyment for more than 100 years and the
temple now claimed the right over the lands, they prayed that patta
should be issued in their favour and all the respondents in the said
proceedings had also filed their registered sale deeds in support of their
claim. The Settlement Tahsildhar also decided whether the grant is a
service tenure lands with both warams or a personal inam burdened with
service or with Melwaram only and also who were entitled for Ryotwari
http://www.judis.nic.in
7/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
patta. The fair Inam Register extract was perused, which had showed that
it was a service inam with both warams. Most of the respondents were
the alienees from the heirs of the service holders.
11. After considering the evidence on record, the Settlement
Tahsildhar decided that Devasthanam and the service holders are entitled
for Ryotwari patta for the lands claimed by them under Section 8(2)(ii) of
the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Tahsildhar, a Revenue
Appeal was preferred in R.A.No.103 of 1974 before the Special Tribunal
Inam Abolition, Ramnad at Sivagangai. However, after the orders were
passed by the Tahsildhar and before the revenue appeals could be filed,
the said Periyasamy Nadar, who is the predecessor in title of the writ
petitioner died on 13.12.1971 leaving behind his legal heirs namely his
wife and sons. In the revenue appeal, one Mariammal W/o. Periyasamy
Nadar was the seventh appellant.
12. The Special Tribunal, Ramnad, dismissed the appeal on
28.08.1975. Thereafter, there was no further appeal and the predecessor
in title of the writ petitioner had allowed the said order to become final.
The said Periyasamy Nadar's son had executed a gift deed in favour of his
daughter Theriyammal on 03.02.1994. The writ petitioner, who is the first
respondent had purchased nearly 7.69 acres of land in Survey Nos.148/1,
http://www.judis.nic.in
8/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
2, 3 and 4 of Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village of Srivillipuhur Taluk, from the
legal heirs of Periyasami Nadar under three sale deeds dated 10.08.1994,
10.08.1994 and 16.05.1996.
13. Thus, the temple was granted Ryotwari patta as early as in the
year 1969, which was confirmed by the Special Tribunal Inam Abolition in
the year 1975. Based on the Ryotwari patta, the temple had applied for
a revenue patta before the Tahsildhar, Srivilliputhur, who is the second
respondent. The second respondent also had issued patta in favour of the
temple on 18.03.2002 subject to the condition that if any civil suit filed
and final decision is granted, the temple would abide by the same. As the
said patta was issued in favour of the appellant without notice or affording
any opportunity to the first respondent Spinning Mills,
W.P.No.23436 of 2002 was filed. The same was allowed by this Court on
01.07.2002. However, the same was allowed without notice to the
temple. Therefore, the temple had preferred W.A.No.3928 of 2002
challenging the order dated 01.07.2002, which was allowed and
remanded to the learned Single Judge. In this connection, it is also
relevant to point out that in respect of the land covered in T.D.No.503, the
temple had filed a suit in O.S.No.416 of 1998 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, which was dismissed and an appeal in
A.S.No.97 of 2005 filed before the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur also met with
http://www.judis.nic.in
9/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
the same fate. It is stated that S.A(MD)No.855 of 2008 is filed by the
temple and the same is said to be pending before this Court.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mentioned that
the subject matter in O.S.No.416 of 1998 is not connected with the writ
petitioner Spinning Mills and they are also not a party to the above
proceedings.
15. Be that as it may, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department,
had issued a notice under Section 78(2) of HR & CE Act on 19.03.2008 to
the writ petitioner calling upon to show cause as to why it should not be
removed from the property alleging it to be the encroacher. The said
notice dated 19.03.2008 is challenged in W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008.
16. The learned Single Judge had passed a common order in both
the writ petitions W.P.No.23436 of 2002 and W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008
allowing the writ petitions on 24.02.2010 on the ground that the second
appeal is still pending and without issuing notice to the writ petitioner,
patta ought not to have been issued in favour of the temple before
determining the title of the temple and issuance of notice under Section
78(2) of HR & CE Act, was also premature and allowed both the writ
petitions. Aggrieved by the above common order, the temple had
http://www.judis.nic.in
10/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
preferred W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 respectively.
17. Insofar as W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010 is concerned, the
subsequent purchasers from the service holders, have filed the writ
petition, challenging the order dated 18.02.2202 issuing patta in favour of
the temple.
18. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
19. In the light of the facts stated supra, the following question
arises for determination:
“whether the first respondent/writ petitioner is
entitled for a notice from the Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur
for grant of patta in favour of the appellant/temple?”
20. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, their
predecessor in title, namely, Periyasamy Nadar passed away on
13.12.1971 and all the legal heirs were brought on record in the
proceedings before the Settlement Tahsildar. The Settlement Tahsildar had
issued the ryotwari patta in favour of the temple on 26.02.1974 and the
temple had applied for revenue patta only in the year 2002.
http://www.judis.nic.in
11/25
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
21.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.Masilamani submitted that the
order granting patta to temple was violative of principles of natural justice
since notice to the persons in possession was not given. In this regard, it
has to be seen that ryotwari patta was granted to the temple and the
issuance of revenue patta is only implementation of the same and no
notice is necessary. To substantiate the said argument, Mr.H.Arumagam,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed his reliance on the
decision in Dh ar a m p a l S a t y a p a l Li mit e d v. D e p u t y C o m m i s s i o n er o f
C e n tr al E x c i s e , G a u h a ti a n d O th er s r e p o rt e d in 2 0 1 5 ( 8) S C C 5 1 9 and the
relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
“28.It is on the aforesaid jurisprudential premise that the
fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem,
have developed. It is for this reason that the courts have consistently
insisted that such procedural fairness has to be adhered to before a
decision is made and infraction thereof has led to the quashing of
decisions taken. In many statutes, provisions are made ensuring that a
notice is given to a person against whom an order is likely to be passed
before a decision is made, but there may be instances where though an
authority is vested with the powers to pass such orders, which affect the
liberty or property of an individual but the statute may not contain a
provision for prior hearing. But what is important to be noted is that the
applicability of principles of natural justice is not dependent upon any
statutory provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied
irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision
or not.
......
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
35. From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that the
opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision was
considered to be a basic requirement in the Court proceeding. Later on,
this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial authorities and other
tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the
administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in
civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary. It was,
thus, observed in A.K. Kraipak's case (supra) that if the purpose of rules
of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how
these rules should not be made available to administrative inquiries. In
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India also the application of principle of
natural justice was extended to the administrative action of the State and
its authorities. It is, thus, clear that before taking an action, service of
notice and giving of hearing to the noticee is required. In Maharashtra
State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills, this aspect was
explained in the following manner:(SCC p.568, para 3)
“3. It has been contended before us by the learned
counsel for the appellant that principles of natural
justice were satisfied before taking action under
Section 29, assuming that it was necessary to do so.
Let it be seen whether it was so. It is well settled that
natural justice cannot be placed in a straight-jacket;
its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case
to case and from one fact-situation to another. All that
has to be seen is that no adverse civil consequences
are allowed to ensue before one is put on notice that
the consequence would follow if he would not take
care of the lapse, because of which the action as made
known is contemplated. No particular form of notice
is the demand of law. All will depend on facts and
circumstances of the case.”
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
......
39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as
the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While
emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in
straight-jacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have
highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of
natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness,
accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless,
there may be situations wherein for some reason – perhaps because the
evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling – it is
felt that a fair hearing 'would make no difference' – meaning that a
hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the
decision-maker–then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Such an
approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen
Corporation, who said that:(WLR p.1595:All ER p.1294)
“....A 'breach of procedure...cannot give (rise
to) a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is
something of substance which has been lost by the
failure. The court does not act in vain'.
Relying on these comments, Brandon LJ opined in Cinnamond v. British
Airports Authority that: (W.L.R p. 593:All ER p.377)
“...no one can complain of not being given an
opportunity to make representations if such an
opportunity would have availed him nothing”.
In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since the
'right' result can be secured without according such treatment to the
individual.
22. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first
respondent/writ petitioner urges that as the delay on the part of the
appellant/temple in getting the revenue patta after 28 years, would
disentitle them from claiming any right as the same would go to show that
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
the appellant did not have any right, interest or title over the property in
question.
23. The same cannot be accepted as the original service inamdars
had sold the property in favour of the first respondent's vendor including
both warams. Because of which, the District Collector had resumed the
lands in proceedings in R.O.C.E.4533/32 and R.O.C.E.7794/52 in respect
of the title deed T.D.503. The said resumption order was challenged by
the first respondent's vendor along with alienees. The suits were
dismissed holding that the District Collector had the right of resumption
on account of alienation made by the inamdars. Further, the appeals in
appeal suits, second appeals and Letters Patent Appeals were also
dismissed confirming the order of resumption.
24. As per Section 3(c) of the Act, all rights and interests created
by the inamdar in or over his inam before the appointed day, shall as
against the Government, cease and determine. Section 3(e), (f) and (g)
of the Act, are as follows:
“3(e).the inamdar and any other person whose
rights stand transferred under clause (b) or cease
and determine under clause (c) shall be entitled only
to such rights and privileges as are recognised or
conferred on him by or under this Act;
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
(f) the rights and obligations of the inamdar as
such shall be extinguished;
(g) any rights and privileges which may have
accrued in the minor inam to any person before the
appointed day against the inamdar shall cease and
determine and shall not be enforceable against the
Government or against the inamdar, and every such
person shall be entitled only to such rights and
privileges as are recognised or conferred on him, by
or under this Act.”
25. A reading of the above provisions also makes it clear that the
order of resumption by the Government of the lands from the inamdars in
view of the reason that they have alienated the property, has become final
at the instance of the alienees. Even presuming that the first respondent
continued to be in possession even after the resumption order was
passed, it is not stated as to why the first respondent had not applied for
the ryotwari patta to sustain their title and possession. Therefore, the
first respondent, is the person who does not have any right or title over
the property, cannot have any locus to challenge the issuance of the
revenue patta in favour of the appellant temple. In the impugned patta
in Nee.Mu.No.B3/318/2000 dated 18.03.2002, undertaking of the
appellant temple is recorded as follows:,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
“4. nkYk; mUs;kpF itj;jpaehj Rthkp jpUf;nfhtpy;
bray; mYtyh; 11.01.2002-k; ehsd;W ,t;tYtyfj;jpy;
bfhLj;Js;s cWjpnaw;g[ cWjpbkhHpapy; ghh;it 3-y; fz;l
nfhtpy;gl;o brl;oy;bkz;l; jhrpy;jhh; mth;fspd;
cj;jutpd;go jpUtpy;ypg[j;Jh; tl;lk;, gof;fhR itj;jhd;gl;o
fpuhkj;jpy; nkw;go Myak; bgaUf;F uaj;Jthhp gl;lh
tHq;fg;gl;l epyq;fSf;F, epyt[lik gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj;
jpl;lj;jpy; gy;ntW egh;fs; gl;lh bgw;Ws;shh;fs;. mjd;
tpguk; nfhtpy; eph;thfj;jpw;F jw;nghJ bjhpa te;Js;sbjdt[k,;
mjd; mog;gilapy; kPz;Lk; Myaj;jpd; bgahpnyna
gjpt[ khw;wk; bra;jpl jw;nghJ tpz;zg;gk; tl;lhl;rpaUf;F
bra;jpUg;gjhft[k,; mt;thW kPz;Lk; Myaj;jpd;
bgahpy; ,j;Jld; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;s gl;oaypy; fz;Ls;s
epyq;fSf;F gjpt[ khw;wk; Vw;gLj;Jtjd; fhuzkhf epy
clik gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;lj;jpy; gl;lh bgw;wth;fs;
VnjDk; tHf;Ffs; chpa ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bjhlh;e;J mjd;
mog;gilapy; xU ,Wjpahd jPh;gg; [ Vw;gl;lhy; mjw;F
nkw;go Myak; rhh;ghf fl;;Lg;gLtjhft[k;, nkw;go ,Wjpahd
jPhg; g; [ vd;gJ nky;KiwaPLfs; Koe;j gpd; filrpapy; tUk;
jPhg; g; [ vd bghUs; bfhs;syhk; vdt[k; cWjpnaw;g[k;
bra;Js;shh;.”
26. A reading of the above shows that the undertaking is with
respect to any challenge by any person, who had obtained ryotwari patta
pursuant to the Act, the temple would be bound by the same. It is not
the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that they had applied for
ryotwari patta under the Act and that now the revenue patta is issued to
the appellant without considering the same. Besides, the suit that is
referred to in O.S.No.416 of 1998, which is now pending before this Court
in S.A(MD)No.855 of 2008, is with respect to the properties situate in
S.Nos.38/1B1, 1B2, 1B3 and 1B4, whereas the claim of the first
respondent Mill is with respect to the lands situate in Survey No.148/1, 2,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
3 and 4. Therefore, the said suit has got no relevance to the facts of the
present case and admittedly, there are no other suit pending in this
regard.
27. When admittedly all the lands are only service inam lands
granted to the temple for rendering service and they are inalienable, the
first respondent cannot have any right to purchase the same from the
predecessor in title of the inam land. Section 21 of the Act provides for
service inams and how they should be dealt with. The above Section
very clearly states that no service holder can sell the property as it is
intended only for the service to a religious, educational or charitable
institution. The continuance of the said service is the object for which
reason, the service holders also include their heirs. Therefore, any failure
to render service as prescribed, shall disentitle the service holder and the
Institution shall at liberty to make such arrangement as it thinks fit for the
performance of the service.
28). The first respondent Mill has no locus to challenge the issuance
of revenue patta as the same is pursuant to the ryotwari patta issued
which has become final. The said proceedings is not the subject matter in
the writ petition and the legality of the same cannot be canvassed here as
it has become final. In this regard, it would be relevant to advert to the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
decision in M.M e e n a k s hi a n d O th er s v. M e t a din A g ar w a l(D e a d) b y Lr s .
a n d o t h er s reported in 2 0 0 6 ( 7) S C C 4 7 0 and the relevant portion of the
said decision is extracted hereunder:
“17. The competent authority under the 1976 Act was not
impleaded as a party in the suit. The orders passed by the competent
authority therein could not have been the subject-matter thereof. The
Plaintiff although being a person aggrieved could have questioned the
validity of the said orders, did not chose to do so. Even if the orders passed
by the competent authorities were bad in law, they were required to be set
aside in an appropriate proceeding. They were not the subject matter of the
said suit and the validity or otherwise of the said proceeding could not
have been gone into therein and in any event for the first time in the Letters
Patent Appeal.
18. It is a well-settled principle of law that even a void order is
required to be set aside by a competent court of law inasmuch as an order
may be void in respect of one person but may be valid in respect of
another. A void order is necessarily not non est. An order cannot be
declared to be void in a collateral proceeding and that too in absence of
the authorities who were the authors thereof. The orders passed by the
authorities were not found to be wholly without jurisdiction. They were
not, thus, nullities.”
29. It is also pertinent to note that the order dated 18.03.2002
registering the name of the appellant is only an implementation of the
order passed by the Settlement Tahsildhar, Kovilpatti, which was
confirmed by the Special Tribunal for Inam Abolition, Ramnad at
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
Sivagangai under Act 30 of 1963. The first respondent Mills, who is only
a purchaser from an alienee of a service inamdar, cannot raise any
objection for the same. Any development made in the property by the
first respondent without any right or title is at his own risk and the same
will not be binding on the appellant temple.
30. The argument that the order dated 26.02.1974, is non est in
law and will not bind the respondent mill, is only to be rejected as the said
order of the Settlement Tahsildar was confirmed in appeal filed by the first
respondent's vendor before the Special Tribunal for Inam Abolition.
Admittedly, excepting the writ petitions filed before this Court, the first
respondent has not taken any independent legal proceedings to get their
title confirmed before any legal forum, which would itslef indicate that
they have been squatting over the property without any right or title to
the same.
31. In the light of the above discussion, the patta granted in favour
of the appellant on 18.03.2002, cannot be disturbed by the first
respondent on the question of violation of principles of natural justice as it
is only a continuance and confirmation of the ryotwari patta granted
earlier in which the first respondent's vendor was a party.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
32. Insofar as W.A(MD)No.107 of 2011 is concerned, it is directed
against the order made in W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008, the appellant in the
capacity of a owner of the property had issued the notice under Section
78(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1959.
However, the Joint Commissioner found that there is a prima facie case of
encroachment. Therefore, he had issued the notice upon the first
respondent Mill calling upon him to show-cause as to why the
encroachment cannot be removed. The said notice is only a show-cause
notice issued to the first respondent to vacate the premises but without
giving its objection if any to the same, the Mill has rushed to this Court
challenging the same. As the right and title of the temple is already
decided in W.P.No.23436 of 2002, the first respondent has to follow the
procedure in the manner known to law and cannot challenge the show-
cause notice.
33. Finding of the learned Single Judge that the temple has
already filed O.S.No.416 of 1998 against the first respondent for recovery
of possession and the same is dismissed and the second appeal is pending
and therefore, the notice issued by the temple under Section 78(2) of the
Act is not maintainable, cannot stand as already held supra, the subject
matter in S.A(MD)No.855 of 2008 is not the one for which the first
respondent is claiming title. Therefore, the first respondent has no right
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
or title to the property. The possession of the temple land is only that of
an encroacher and the notice issued under Section 78(2) of the Act is
sustainable.
34. In view of the above findings, the common order dated
24.02.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23436 of 2002
and W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008, is set aside and the writ appeals are
allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
35. Insofar as W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010 is concerned, the same is
filed by the petitioners challenging the patta given to the appellant
temple. Hence, in view of the above findings, recording the same, this
writ petition is also dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
.03.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
To
The Tahsildar,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
pm
Judgment made in
W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011
and
W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010
.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
