Madras High Court
The Idol Of Arulmighu ... vs The District Collector on 26 April, 2022
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
Writ Petition No.12816 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.15835 of 2020
The Idol of Arulmighu Vilvanatheeswarar
@ Viswanathaswamy
Vilvanatheeswarar Thirukoil
Represented by its Executive Officer
Manjakuppam
Cuddalore Town and District. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2.The Tahsildar
Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore.
3.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Uttamar Gandhi salai
Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 034.
4.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Villupuram Division, Villupuram – 605 602.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
5.The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Cuddalore Division
Cuddalore – 607 001.
6.R.Yuvarajan .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised
in Na.Ka.V1/20106/2019 dated 22.05.2020 on the file of the 1st respondent
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharanidharan
for Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For R1 and R2 : Mr.C.Sathish
Government Advocate
For R3 to R5 : Mr.S.Yashwanth
Additional Government Pleader
For R6 : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Aswini Devi
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the order of the 1st respondent dated
22.05.2020 holding that 6th respondent is entitled for patta under RSO31(7) in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
respect of land in old S.No.5, old T.S.No.1871/2, present T.S.No.1509,
Block-21, Ward 7, situate at Utharamanikkam, Cuddalore Taluk and District.
2.According to the petitioner, the land in question is Devadayam land
granted in favour of the deity Arulmighu Vilvanathaswamy @
Viswanathaswamy, Utharamanikkam Village, Cuddalore. The Inam Fair
Register of the year 1861 reveals that the grant is permanent in nature and
even after Re-survey was done in 1919, the name of the deity is mentioned in
the Town Survey Register as Viswanathaswamy, which is the Sanskrit
phonetic name of Vilvanathaswamy. In the Inam Fair Register in column 17,
it shows the persons in enjoyment and management as Chinnasamy Gurukkal
and Arunachala Gurukkal, who were in possession of the property in lieu of
their services for performance of daily poojas in the temple.
2(i) The 6th respondent (in the year 2002) sought for lease of the land
and a file was sent to the Revenue Officials for assessing the value of the
properties and to fix the fair rent. The said process was not completed and in
the meanwhile, the 6th respondent again made an application for grant of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
lease. The District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, fixed the lease value as
Rs.450/- per sq.ft. The 6th respondent coming to know about the value of the
property, filed O.S.No.345 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif
Court, Cuddalore, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner temple
from interfering with his possession and also denied the title of the petitioner
for the first time. The defendants in the suit did not file written statement and
hence, the suit filed by the 6th respondent was decreed exparte by the
judgment and decree dated 01.04.2016. Thereafter, the 6th respondent made an
application to the 1st respondent for issue of patta in the name of 6th
respondent as well as in his brother's name in terms of RSO 31(7). In
pursuant to the said application, the 1st respondent issued notice to the 5th
respondent alone and did not issue any notice to the petitioner temple. In the
mean while, the petitioner temple filed I.A.No.362 of 2019 in O.S.No.345 of
2014 to condone the delay of 1271 days in filing petition to set aside the
exparte decree dated 01.04.2016 made in O.S.No.345 of 2014.
2(ii) In the application filed by the 6th respondent, the 1st respondent
conducted enquiry on various dates. Both the 6th respondent and 5th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
respondent filed written submissions and documents. The 6th respondent
objected the petitioner from participating in the enquiry before the 1st
respondent as in the Inam Register, it has been wrongly stated that the land in
question belongs to Arulmighu Viswanathaswamy temple and H.R. and C.E.
Department under R.T.I. Act informed 6th respondent that there is no such
temple by name Viswanathaswamy. The Sanskrit phonetic name of
Arulmighu Vilvanathaswamy temple has been entered as Arulmighu
Viswanathaswamy temple. Even assuming Natesa Gurukkal was owner of the
property and leased out the property for 10 years on 01.09.1917, he could not
have orally sold the property in the year 1918 pending the lease. The decree
in O.S.No.345 of 2014 does not confer any title upon the 6th respondent. The
1st respondent held that 6th respondent is in possession of the property for a
very long time. The petitioner has not taken any steps against the 6 th
respondent to take possession and till final decision is arrived in O.S.No.55 of
2020 (wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.356 of 2020) filed by the petitioner, the
6th respondent is entitled to patta and that order would be subject to the decree
to be passed in O.S.No.55 of 2020 (wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.356 of
2020) filed by the petitioner and till then the authorities cannot interfere with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
the possession of the 6th respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner has
filed the present Writ Petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, without hearing the petitioner,
is arbitrary. The 1st respondent failed to consider the circular, wherein it has
been stated that when it is brought to the notice of the authority of pending
suit, the authority should not pass any order, but would have directed the
parties to seek remedy pending suit. When the name of the temple is
mentioned in the revenue records, it is for the 6 th respondent to approach the
Civil Court to prove the title. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that though the 1st respondent has observed that Civil Court would
be the competent authority to decide the ownership of the property, the
finding that the 6th respondent is in uninterrupted possession and is entitled to
patta would be a bearing issue in the civil proceedings, which would amount
to evading into the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by the 6 th respondent and
prayed for setting aside the order of the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
4.The 6th respondent filed counter affidavit and denied all the
averments made in the affidavit. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the 6th respondent submitted that Writ Petition filed by the Executive Officer
is not maintainable as he has no authority to file Writ Petition on behalf of the
temple. On this ground alone, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The
property in question does not belong to the petitioner temple. Originally, the
property belonged to one Natesa Gurukkal and in the year 1917, he orally
sold the property in question to the 6th respondent's grand father Bashyam
Reddiyar. From that date onwards, the property is in possession and
enjoyment of the 6th respondent's family. The 6th respondent's grand father, on
the death of his wife Rajambal Ammal, buried his wife in the portion of the
land in question, built a Samadhi in the year 1956 and also constructed
Pillaiyar temple and Abhishekgam is done for more than 70 years. In the
revenue records, the property is shown as 'Samadhi' and there is no document
to show that property belongs to the petitioner temple. The officials of the
H.R. and C.E. Department in the information furnished to the petitioner under
R.T.I. Act informed that there is no temple called Arulmighu
Viswanathaswamy temple. While father of the 6th respondent was in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
possession of the suit property, the petitioner issued a notice dated
26.02.1993 to the 6th respondent's father stating that H.R. and C.E.
Department took over the petitioner temple about 1 ½ years prior to the
notice stating that on verification of the property register of the temple and
revenue records, Radhakrishnan Reddiyar, father of the 6th respondent was in
illegal possession of the temple and asked him to vacate and surrender the
possession. Father of the 6th respondent sent a reply dated 12.03.1993
denying the title of the temple to the suit property and stated that they are in
possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 96 years, while
tracing the title in his favour. After receiving the said reply, the petitioner did
not take any further action realising that the suit property is private property
of 6th respondent's family.
4(i).Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent further
submitted that after death of the 6th respondent's father, 6th respondent is in
possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner is trying to forcibly
take possession of the suit property from the 6th respondent. Hence, the 6th
respondent filed O.S.No.345 of 2014 for permanent injunction, against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
petitioner and respondents 3 to 5. Even though several opportunities were
given to the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5, they did not contest the suit
and on 01.04.2016, an exparte decree was passed in favour of the 6th
respondent. The application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.362 of 2019 to
condone the delay of 1271 days in filing petition to set aside the exparte
decree dated 01.04.2016 was dismissed on 26.02.2021.
4(ii).Subsequently, 6th respondent filed an application before the 1st
respondent for issue of pata. The 1st respondent considering all the materials
placed before him, has held that 6th respondent and his family members are in
possession and enjoyment of the property for long time, the petitioner has not
taken any steps and 6th respondent is entitled for patta. But however issuance
of patta will be decided subject to result of the suit filed by the petitioner in
O.S.No.55 of 2020 (wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.356 of 2020).
4(iii) The 6th respondent filed revision before the Commissioner of land
Administration against the order of the 1st respondent dated 22.05.2020 and
the same is pending. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that
property in question is in possession of family of the 6th respondent from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
year 1917 onwards without any interference by the petitioner and petitioner
has no document in his possession to show that property belongs to the
petitioner temple. The order of the 1st respondent that 6th respondent is
entitled to get patta is valid and hence, a direction may be issued to the
Principal District Court, Cuddalore, to dispose of O.S.No.55 of 2020
(wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.356 of 2020) on merits, based on the oral and
documentary evidence placed by both the petitioner as well as 6th respondent,
without being influenced by the order of the 1st respondent and prayed for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5.In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that a direction may be issued to the learned Judge to dispose of the suit in
O.S.No.55 of 2020 (wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.356 of 2020), without
being influenced by the order passed by the 1st respondent.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the
the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 to 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent and perused
the entire materials on record.
7.From the impugned order, it is seen that the 1 st respondent has held
that 6th respondent is entitled to patta subject to result of the suit in O.S.No.55
of 2020 (wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.356 of 2020) filed by the petitioner,
based on the possession by the family members of the 6 th respondent from the
year 1917, Samadhi and Rajaganapathy temple built by the 6 th respondent's
grand father, report of the Tahsildar with regard to possession of the 6th
respondent, in addition to other documents filed by the 6th respondent
including the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2016 made in O.S.No.345 of
2014, wherein permanent injunction is granted in favour of the 6th respondent
against the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 and that the petitioner and
respondents 3 to 5 are restrained from interfering with possession of the 6th
respondent except due process of law, after establishing their title to the
property through the Court. It is not in dispute that the 6 th respondent's family
is in possession of the property in question from the year 1917 onwards. The
contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for 6th respondent that
petitioner after issuing notice in the year 1993 to the father of the 6th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
respondent to surrender the vacant possession of the property treating him as
an encroacher, has not taken any further action after receipt of the reply dated
12.03.1993 sent by the father of the 6th respondent, is not disputed by the
petitioner and respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.55 of 2020
(wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.356 of 2020) for declaration of title, recovery
of possession, mandatory injunction and damages at Rs.50,000/- per month
for use and occupation of the suit property. The 1 st respondent, taking note of
the pendency of the said suit, has held that issue of patta in favour of the 6th
respondent will be subject to the result of the said suit. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that finding of the 1st respondent in the impugned
order will have a bearing against the petitioner in the suit filed by him in
O.S.No.55 of 2020 (wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.356 of 2020) and his
contention is in view of the pendency of the suit, the impugned order of the
1st respondent is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent apart from making submissions on
merits for dismissal of the Writ Petition, has submitted that a direction may be
issued to the learned Judge to decide the issue in O.S.No.55 of 2020 (wrongly
mentioned as O.S.No.356 of 2020) filed by the petitioner temple, based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
the oral and documentary evidence placed by the petitioner as well as 6th
respondent, without being influenced by the impugned order of the 1 st
respondent. A reading of the impugned order of the 1 st respondent makes it
clear that said order is subject to the result of O.S.No.55 of 2020 (wrongly
mentioned as O.S.No.356 of 2020) on the file of the Principal District Court,
Cuddalore.
8.In view of the above materials and contention of the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent and the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed with a direction to the learned
Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, to decide O.S.No.55 of 2020 on merits
based on the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, without
being influenced by the findings of the District Collector, Cuddalore, 1st
respondent, in the impugned order dated 22.05.2020. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
26.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12816 of 2020
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
kj
To
1.The District Collector
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore.
2.The Tahsildar
Cuddalore Taluk
Cuddalore.
3.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Uttamar Gandhi salai
Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 034. W.P.No.12816 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.15835 of 2020
4.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Villupuram Division
Villupuram – 605 602.
5.The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
Cuddalore Division
Cuddalore – 607 001.
26.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
