Madras High Court
Unknown vs P.Chinnasamy on 28 October, 2022
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.16289 & 16298 of 2019
Arulmigu Karikaliamman Temple,
Moongilthozhuvu,
Rep. by its Fit Person/Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Alkondamal Thirukovil,
Somavarapatti,
Udumalpet Taluk,
Tirupur District.
[Cause title accepted vide Court order dated
23.07.2019 made in CMP.No.14860 of 2019
in WA.SR.No.81159 of 2019 by NKKJ & AQJ] ... Appellant
Vs.
Sennimalai Gounder (Died)
1. P.Chinnasamy
Maruthathal (Died)
Palaniammal (Died)
2. Sellamuthu Gounder
(Recorded as legal heir of deceased Palanisamy)
Palaniswamy Gounder (Died)
Page No.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
3. Rangathal
4. S.Viswanathan
5. S.Manthrachalam
(R3 to R5 have been substituted as
LRs of the deceased Sennimalai Gounder)
6. S.Dhandapani
7. S.Sadaiappan
(R6 and R7 have been substituted as LRs
of the deceased Maruthathal)
8. R.Muthulakshmi
9. M.Ramasamy
(R8 and R9 have been substituted as LRs
of deceased Palaniammal as both of them
got right under registered Will executed
by Maruthammal on 09.09.2002)
(R3 to R9 have been substituted as LRs
of the deceased Sennimalai Gounder,
Maruthathal and Maruthathal vide Order
dated 18.12.2018 made in W.P.No.4477/06)
10. The Additional District Magistrate &
District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore
Office of the District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore.
11. The Sub-Collector, Pollachi
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pollachi.
Page No.2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
12. The Tahsildar,
Udumalpet Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
13. The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Coimbatore.
14. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District.
(R13 and R14 have been suo-moto impleaded vide
Order dated 18.12.2018 made in W.P.No.4477/06)
15. V.Velkesh
16. S.Senthil Kumar
(R15 & R16 impleaded vide Court order dated
25.08.2022 made in C.M.P.No.17735 of 2021
in W.A.No.2492 of 2019) ... Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4477 of 2006 dated
29.04.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Ashok Kumar
For R1 to 5, 8 & 9 : Mr.V.Sanjeevi
For R6 & R7 : Mr.P.S.Venkatasubramanian
For R10, 11, 12 & 14 : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan
Page No.3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
Additional Government Pleader
For R13 : Mr.Bindran
Additional Government Pleader
For R15 & 16 : Mr.Arun Anbumani
For Mr.M.Guruprasad
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.,)
This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of this Court
made in W.P.No.4477 of 2006 dated 29.04.2019.
2. Heard Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to
5, 8 & 9, Mr.P.S.Venkatasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents 6 & 7, Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 10, 11, 12 & 14,
Mr.Bindran, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R13 and
Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 15 & 16.
3. The Writ Court has set aside the orders of the authorities canceling
Page No.4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
the Patta granted to the private respondents solely on the ground that, in the
guise of canceling the Revenue Pattas, the Revenue Authorities have
canceled the orders of the Settlement Officer made under the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Tyotwari) Act,
1963.
4. We find ourselves in entire grounds that in the conclusion of the
Writ Court, the following observations of the District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore made in his order dated 06.01.2006 which was the order
impugned in the Writ Petition would demonstrate such transgression by the
Revenue Authorities in the realm of the settlement proceedings.
5. The District Revenue Officer has observed as follows :
“After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing
the records, I come to the conclusion that it is open to the
temple authorities to file an appeal U/s. 11(3) to the Tribunal
and get proper orders by explaining the delay in filing appeal
and so on. However, on perusal of the documents, the order of
the Settlement Tahsildar, the Revision Petitioners are trying to
Page No.5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
usurp the property of the temple under the guise of hereditary
poojaries of Kariyakaliamman Temple. By virtue of the pooja
done by them in the past, they came to illegally possess these
lands and thereby, they have obtained an order in their favour
from the Settlement Tahsildar. However, the illegal things
cannot be regularized and the merits of the case cannot die,
therefore the matter may be referred to the appropriate forum
for getting relief against the orders of the Settlement Tahsildar
by the temple.
However, for the time being, to safe guard the interest of
the temple and to save the purpose of original grant, the orders
of the Sub-Collector, Pollachi is upheld and the Revision
Petition is hereby dismissed.”
6. From the above, it is very clear that the District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore was alive to the fact that the Revenue Authorities have no
jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of the order passed by the Settlement
Tahsildar under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
Tyotwari) Act, 1963.
Page No.6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
7. The Writ Court has gone into the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Tyotwari) Act, 1963 and has
concluded that the Pattas have not been granted under the Minor Inam
Abolition Act, 1963 and it was not open to the revenue authorities to cancel
the same.
8. We do not see any reason to take any different view. Hence, the
Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
9. Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
temple now would submit that the appellant temple had already filed an
appeal under the provisions of the Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963 before
the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal. Hence, it is open to the temple
authorities to put forth the matter in the appeal to arrive at a logical
conclusion.
(R.S.M, J.) (K.B, J.)
28.10.2022
gba / raja
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Page No.7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
Speaking order/non speaking order
To
1. The Additional District Magistrate &
District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore
Office of the District Revenue Officer,
Coimbatore.
2. The Sub-Collector, Pollachi
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pollachi.
3. The Tahsildar,
Udumalpet Taluk,
Coimbatore District.
4. The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Coimbatore.
5. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District.
Page No.8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
Page No.9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
raja
W.A.No.2492 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.16289 & 16298 of 2019
28.10.2022
Page No.10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
