Madras High Court
A.Veluchamy vs The District Collector on 21 April, 2022
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD).No.2772 of 2022
A.Veluchamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
3.The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy,
Thirukovil,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the third respondent in
Na.Ka.No.1367/2021/A2 dated 30.11.2021 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the encumbrance made
over the petitioner's property in respect of survey number 376 which is sub
divided into survey number 376/2 and 376/3 and the survey number 381
which are sub divided into 381/1, 381/2, 381/3, 381/4, 381/5, 381/6, 381/7,
381/8, 381/9 and 381/10, 381/13, 381/14, 381/15, 381/16, 381/17 and 381/18.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Kannappan
For R1, R2, R4 & R5 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.M.Muthugeethayan
ORDER
The petitioner challenged the impugned communication, dated
30.11.2021 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1367/2021/A2. By the impugned
communication, the third respondent temple has requested the Divisional
Revenue Officer to take steps to cancel the patta in respect of the villagers'
agricultural lands in Seevarayendhal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the
lands in the aforesaid village and had purchased the property form 1997 to
2017. The petitioner and his family depend on the agricultural income from
the said property. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
purchaser of the property and that ryotwari patta was issued to the petitioner’s
vendor on 19.04.1967 in terms of the order in G.O.Ms.No.796 of 1967. Since
the ryotwari patta was issued to the persons holding the possession of the
property and therefore they were entitled to sell the same and therefore and
thus the petitioner has a perfect title over the property, which have been
purchased by the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the purported
exercise in the appeal filed by the third respondent temple before the
Divisional Revenue Officer to cancel the patta issued to the petitioner and the
members of the villagers cannot be allowed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the G.O.MS.No.
796 of 1967 makes it clear that there was indeed a proceeding in terms of
Inam Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (abolition and conversion into ryotwari) Act,
1963 [Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963].
4. Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the steps have been taken by the third respondent to cancel the patta in
terms of the order of this Court in In Re The Director, Archaeological
Survey of India, New Delhi, [in Suo Motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 & W.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
(MD).No.24178 of 2018, decided on 07.06.2021]. A specific reference to
paragraph 35 from the said order reads as read:
“35. The encroachment and illegal constructions in the
protected area, archaelogical sites, temple lands, etc., must
immediately be removed. The extent of lands owned by the temples
must be identified with the help of the revenue department by the
Direct Level Committee. The District Collector of the appropriate
District, on the request of the Heritage Commission or State
Committee or District Level Committees or by any officer of the
HR&CE Department, shall forthwith take steps for the removal of
any such illegal construction or encroachement or unauthorised
occupants. Appropriate action must be taken against the errant
Government Officials of the central as well as state department and
officers under the HR&CE department for not removing the
encroachments in the protected and regulated area, within a period
of eight (8) weeks on expiry of the time given.”
The learned counsel for the respondents therefore submits that the
present writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
5. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn
attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
A.Radhakrishnan Vs Commissioner of Survey and Settlements and
others, reported in 2010 (1) CWC 80, dated 23.10.2019. A specific reference
was made to paragraph 36 (2), which reads as under:
“36.The judgments cited above are squarely applicable to the
facts in case on hand and by applying the decisions cited supra and
also in view of the stand taken by the temple and the District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
Collector, Karur, this Court passes the following order:
2.Insofar as the third category is concerned, wherein
settlement pattas were given in the name of the individuals, the
temple has to work out its remedies by filing a suit within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the
same has to be disposed of by the concerned Court within a period of
one year thereof. The fourth respondent as well as the Commissioner,
Archives and Historical Research Department shall provide all
relevant records of the lands in issue to the HR & CE Department
within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order
enabling them to initiate a suit as directed.”
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The claim of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner’s vendors
were indeed issued with ryotwari patta as earlier as 19.04.1967 under the
provisions of the aforesaid Act cannot decided in this proceeding.
8. The respondents on the other hand has placed reliance on the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A.Radhakrishnan's case
(referred to supra) as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A specific
reference from the aforesaid order reads as under:
“36.The judgments cited above are squarely applicable to the facts
in case on hand and by applying the decisions cited supra and also
in view of the stand taken by the temple and the District Collector,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
Karur, this Court passes the following order:
3.Insofar as the fourth category is concerned the revenue
records have been altered to the name of the individuals during
UDR, and it is now reported that the DRO, after due enquiry, has
passed orders restoring pattas to the temple and therefore, the
temple authorities have to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of
HR & CE Act and take further action. If the parties are aggrieved,
it is for them to challenge the same, in the manner known to law, by
approaching appropriate forum and in any event, if any appeal is
filed, the same shall be decided within a period of six months
thereof.
4.Insofar as the fifth category is concerned, the revenue records have
been altered into the name of the individuals after UDR and now it is reported
that the RDO has conducted an enquiry and restored the pattas in the name of
the temple and therefore, the temple is at liberty to restore their properties by
initiating proceedings under Section 78 of HR & CE Act and take further
action. If anybody is aggrieved by the order of the RDO, it is open to them to
challenge the same before the competent authority, and if any such appeal is
filed, the same shall be disposed by the concerned forum on merits within a
period of six months from thereof.”
9. There are several disputed questions of fact as to whether petitioner’s
vendors were indeed issued with ryotwari patta or not. This issue will have to
necessarily adjudicated and decided elsewhere and not in the limited
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Be
that as it may, it is noticed that the third respondent temple have taken steps
for cancelling the patta before the Divisional Revenue Officer. Whether the
petitioner and other villagers have impleaded in the said proceedings are not
decided from the records available from the Court. The record also indicates
that the lands inrespect of the petitioner has registered sale deed from his
vendor falls within the said village.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
10. Considering the above, I am inclined to dispose this writ petition by
directing the third respondent temple to implead the petitioner and other
villagers, who are likely to be affected by the steps being taken for cancelling
the patta in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in In Re
The Director, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, [in Suo Motu
W.P.No.574 of 2015 & W.P.(MD).No.24178 of 2018, decided on
07.06.2021]. In the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner and the other
villagers, whose interest have been addressed by the petitioner in his
representation shall be decided. Pending disposal of the above proceedings
before the Divisional Revenue Officer, Tenkasi, the possession of the property
shall not be disturbed. It is made clear that the Divisional Revenue Officer,
Tenkasi shall entertain the appeal filed by the third respondent temple and
dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to state
that before passing any such order, all the concerned persons shall be heard
who are likely to be affected by such proceedings.
11. The writ petition stand disposed of with the above observations. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
21.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
sn
To
1.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
3.The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy,
Thirukovil,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
sn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
W.P(MD).No.3189 of 2022
21.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
