Madras High Court
J.Pushparaj vs State Rep. By Its on 8 June, 2022
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.6973 of 2022
1. J.Pushparaj
2. R.Maya
3. R.Govindaraj
4. G.Kalavathi .. Appellants
vs
1. State Rep. by its
The Principal Secretary cum
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2. The Settlement Officer,
Chennai.
3. Sri Bharathwajeswarar Temple,
Rep. by its Executive Officer,
Puliyur, Kodambakkam,
Chennai 600 026.
4. J.Mohanraj
5. J.Udhayakumar
6. J.Raghumani
7. V.M.Shyamala
___________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
8. E.Alagumani
9. N.Mahesh
10.A.Sampath
11.A.Banumathy
12.R.Saroja
13.C.Subbulakshmi
14.M.Panneer Selvam
15.K.Arulmurugan
16.K.Meenakshi Sundaram
17.P.Umapathy
18.A.Andalammal
19.S.Chakravarthi Valli
20.K.Bangaru Ammal
21.N.Ramachandran
22.R.Saroja
23.A.Mahendran
24.K.Kanaga Karunakaran
K.M.Pappiah (Died)
25.C.G.Vilasisni
26.S.Lakshminarayanan
27.Hajira Bee
28.S.Mohammed Ali
29.S.Khaja Shariff
30.S.Fatima .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 20.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.11076 of 2013 on the file of
this Court.
For the Appellants : Mr.S.Nambirajan
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Govt. Pleader
Assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha,
Spl.G.P. for R-1
*****
___________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated
20.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petition preferred by the appellants to challenge the order dated
12.02.2013 and further to seek a direction on the respondents to
grant patta for the land at Block 3, Pulliyur Village, Vadapalani,
Chennai.
2. The writ petition was filed stating that the appellants and
their predecessors owned buildings in the land comprised in
T.S.No.14, 15 and 16 situated at Block No.3, Pulliyur Village,
Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk and are in possession and enjoyment
of the land. They constructed buildings over it, but were not
granted ground rent pattas. A representation was thus made on the
Commissioner of Land Administration and on verification of the
revenue tax receipts and continuous possession, they were granted
the ground rent pattas on 26.08.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE, filed an appeal on the ground
that the land belongs to the third respondent, that is, the temple
citing the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar III, Chengalpet,
dated 15.05.1971.
3. The appellants thereupon came to know that the enquiry for
the patta in the land was a suo motu enquiry and the scope of the
enquiry was to determine whether the appellants were entitled to
the ground rent pattas. It was also alleged that no material was
produced by the third respondent Temple to prove its ownership
over the land in question. The Settlement Officer, however, directed
to issue ground rent patta in favour of the third respondent on the
ground that the appellants had already been paying rent for the land
in question.
4. That apart, the contention was that the inam grant was for
pooja services of the temple and since the inam is a service inam,
the poojari, who has rendered service to the temple, is entitled to
grant of patta and the third respondent is entirely different from the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
service inam land. The temple authority failed to produce any
evidence to show that the temple in question and the third
respondent are one and the same and owns the title of the land.
The order under challenge should have been interfered by the
learned Single Judge.
5. The contention in reference to Section 13 (1) of the
Abolition Act and the law laid down in that regard was also referred
by citing the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of
K.Vellappa Gounder vs. K.S.Thirugnanasambandam Chettiar,
reported in 1980 (93) LW 707.
6. On the aforesaid contentions, the learned Single Judge
analysed the issue after taking into consideration the counter filed
by the respondents. On perusal of the materials, the learned Single
Judge found that Pulliyur Village was taken over by the Government
under the Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Since the subject lands were inam lands, the
Ryotwari Settlement was introduced under the provisions of Tamil
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1963.
The Settlement Tahsildar in his proceedings dated 15.05.1971 had
allowed the ground rent pattas in respect of the subject land under
Section 13(1) of the Act of 1963 in favour of the third respondent.
The Settlement Tahsildar rejected the request of the appellants for
grant of patta as they were the tenants under the third respondent.
It was even after taking into consideration that superstructure has
been constructed by the appellants. The order of the Settlement
Officer was not challenged by the appellants and further, The
Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam, in his proceedings dated
26.08.2004 had transferred the patta in the names of the
appellants. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent filed a
revision before the District Revenue Officer, Chennai, who, vide
order dated 12.08.2005, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar,
Egmore-Nungambakkam and restored the patta in the name of the
third respondent. Against the said order, the appellants preferred a
revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration and after a
detailed enquiry, the Commissioner held that the issue was already
settled in favour of the third respondent in the year 1971 itself.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal before the Inam
Abolition Tribunal, which was also rejected since the proceeding is in
the matter of transfer of registry on the order passed by the District
Revenue Officer and the Commissioner of Land Administration has
also confirmed the order. Thus, the appellants could not have any
claim over the land in question.
7. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the
appellants filed petition before the Settlement Officer seeking
cancellation of the order of the Settlement Tahsildar dated
15.05.1971 and also a suit in C.M.A.No.87 of 2006 before the City
Civil Court, Chennai. However, on request, the entire records were
transferred to the Settlement Officer and after due enquiry, the
Settlement Officer set aside the order passed by the Settlement
Tahsildar dated 15.05.1971 and ordered the land to be treated as
Government Poromboke. Aggrieved, the appellants and the third
respondent filed revisions before the first respondent and by the
impugned order, the first respondent restored the order of the
Settlement Tahsildar dated 15.05.1971.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
8. The learned Single Judge analysed the issue in detail and
on consideration of the stand taken by the appellants before the first
respondent that they have stopped paying rent to the third
respondent for a long time, held that the said fact proves that the
appellants were originally tenants under the third respondent and
hence, their claim for patta was rightly rejected by the Settlement
Tahsildar. It was also found that the issue was settled in the year
1971 itself and the appellants have not challenged the order of the
Settlement Tahsildar. Further, the learned Single Judge observed
that the Settlement Officer has no power to entertain the petition
under the Act of 1963 and thus, cannot set aside the order of the
Settlement Tahsildar dated 15.05.1971. The learned Single Judge
held that instead of seeking remedy before the Civil Court, the suit
filed by the appellants was transferred to the Settlement Officer on
his request, who had no authority to deal with the same and only
the Civil Court is competent to decide the possession and other
claims made by the appellants. Accordingly, finding no illegality in
the order of the first respondent, the learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
9. The learned counsel submits that the appellants never made
a request to transfer the matter from the Civil Court to the
Settlement Officer for challenge to the order passed by the
Settlement Tahsildar. But, he could not refer to any pleading to this
effect in the appeal nor any argument before the learned Single
Judge in that regard. It is more so when a specific finding has been
recorded by the learned Single Judge regarding the request of the
appellants to transfer the matter from Civil Court to the Settlement
Officer, who was having no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue in
reference to the order of the Settlement Tahsildar.
10. In view of the above, though the appeal has been
preferred, it is without questioning the finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge and otherwise, reference of all the ligitations in
respect of the land in question has been made by the appellants and
even the appeal preferred before the Inam Abolition Tribunal was
also dismissed. After the dismissal of the appeal, there is nothing
on record to show that it was further challenged with a favourable
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
order for the appellants
11. For all the reasons, we do not find any ground to either
interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge or issue
the direction on the respondents to grant patta to the appellants,
when the entire issue was adjudicated earlier and examined at
different levels, which is not only in the revision, but in the appellate
jurisdiction before the Tribunal with adverse order against the
appellants.
The Writ Appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.6973 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
08.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
sra
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
To:
1. The Principal Secretary cum
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2. The Settlement Officer,
Chennai.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
M.N.Bhandari, CJ.
and
N.Mala, J.
(sra)
W.A.No.1131 of 2022
08.06.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
