Madras High Court
(Cause Title Has Been Amended vs The District Collector on 5 January, 2023
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 05.01.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 31.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
and
M.P.(MD) Nos. 13762 and 15260 of 2018
Sri Sundararajaperumal Devasthanam,
Paramakudi 623 707,
Represented by its Managing Trustee
Thudu Kuchi T.R.Naganathan,
S/o.Ramachary, Paramakudi 623 707,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Cause title has been amended
vide order dated 05.01.2023)
... Petitioner in both W.Ps.,
/vs./
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Collectorate,
Ramanathapuram 623 503.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Collectorate, Ramanathapuram 623 503.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
3.The Sub Collector,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District 623 707.
4.The Assistant Director cum
P.A. to District Collector,
(Land Survey),
Office of the District Survey,
Ramanathapuram 623 503.
5.The Commissioner,
Paramakudi Municipality,
Paramakudi 623 707.
6.Tahsildar,
Paramakudi Taluk,
Paramakudi 623 707.
7.S.R.Thangavelu
... Respondents in both W.Ps.,
PRAYER in W.P.(MD) No.15226 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Pa.Mu.(B2)/45179/2017
dated 30.04.2018 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same, and
directing the respondents 1, 2 and 6 to pass appropriate further orders lifting the
order prohibiting the petitioner temple from constructing the compound wall in
respect of the lands in Survey No.187/1 to an extent of 1.61.5 Ares,
corresponding to an extent of 3 acres and 60 cents in Urapuli Village in
Paramakudi Taluk in Ramanathapuram District on the basis of the report made by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
the fourth respondent in his R.C.A9/5628/17 dated 28.12.2017 to the first
respondent to his R.C.No.B2/45179/17 dated 06.11.2017 within a time frame as
fixed by this Court.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD) No.17355 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.B2/33694/18 dated
25.07.2018 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same and
forbearing the respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 from in any manner interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in Survey No.187/1 to an extent
of 1.61.5 Ares, corresponding to an extent of 3 acres and 60 cents in Urapuli
village in Paramakudi Taluk in Ramanathapuram District belonging to Sri
Sundararajaperumal Devasthanam, Paramakudi, within a time frame as fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioners
in both W.Ps., : M/s.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya
For R1 to R4 & R6
in both W.Ps., : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
For R7
in both W.Ps., : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan
For R5
in both W.Ps., : Mr.M.Kannan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
COMMON ORDER
W.P.(MD) No.15226 of 2018 has been filed to call for the records relating
to the proceedings in Pa.Mu.(B2)/45179/2017 dated 30.04.2018 on the file of the
second respondent, to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1, 2 and 6 to
pass appropriate further orders lifting the order prohibiting the petitioner temple
from constructing the compound wall in respect of the land in S.No.187/1, to an
extent of 1.61.5 Ares, corresponding to an extent of 3 acres and 60 cents at
Urapuli Village in Paramakudi Taluk in Ramanathapuram District.
2.W.P.(MD) No.17355 of 2018 has been filed to call for the records relating
to the proceedings in Na.Ka.B2/33694/18 dated 25.07.2018 on the file of the first
respondent, to quash the same and to forbear the respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 from
in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands
in Survey No.187/1 to an extent of 1.61.5 Ares, corresponding to an extent of 3
acres and 60 cents at Urapuli village in Paramakudi Taluk in Ramanathapuram
District belonging to Sri Sundararajaperumal Devasthanam, Paramakudi.
3.The writ petitions arise out of a common set of facts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
4.The petitioner’s temple claims that it is a denomination temple founded
and constructed by the members of the Sourastra community some 400 years ago.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said Sourastra community
has been managing the temple from the date of its inception from the funds given
by the members of the said community. A scheme has also been framed in respect
of the temple in O.S.No.64 of 1930 on the file of the Temporary Subordinate
Judge, Ramnad at Madurai.
5.The said scheme inter alia provides for formation of a committee, term of
officer of committee, functions of the committee and also management of various
properties of the petitioner’s temple. Clause 36 of the said scheme gives power to
the committee to lease the property for not more than 5 years and the alienation
also has been prohibited except on the unanimous resolution of the committee
under the said scheme.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the
petitioner’s temple has been declared as a denomination temple, by a judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
and decree made in O.S.No.29 of 1974 dated 30.04.1975 on the file of the learned
Principal Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. She would further
submit that the proceedings under the Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963 (Act
26/63) were initiated in respect of the village and in respect of the lands in S.No.
187 and 68, riotwary patta was issued in favour of the petitioner’s temple. A
finding has also been given by the settlement Tahsildar that the lands in question
are private lands of the land holders falling under Section 9 of the Act.
7.The scheme that was framed by the Court as early as in the year 1914 was
sought to be modified by the Deputy Commissioner, Madras in O.A.No.30/1968.
The said modification was challenged before the Commissioner, HR & CE in
A.P.No.144/1973 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside.
Thereafter, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property
exclusively by the petitioner temple.
8.While that being so, certain individuals having vested interest have made
a complaint that the petitioner is encroaching upon certain lands and is trying to
put up constructions, thereby preventing the easy access of the public to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
temple and had sought for a direction to prohibit such unauthorized constructions
and to permit the general public to use the lands surrounding the temple for public
purposes. When the petitioner was called upon to explain it stand, the petitioner
has specifically given written representation stating that the property belongs to it
by way of purchase and settlement and that during the year 1969 under the
settlement proceedings recognizing the title of the petitioner in the property,
riotwary patta has been issued under Section 9 (2)(a) of 26/1963 Act. A report
dated 28.12.2017 has also been filed by the Assistant Director cum Personal
Assistant to the District Collector to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram
elucidating all the aforesaid facts and reported that there is no encroachment on
the Poramboke lands and that the construction is necessary to protect the
properties belonging to the temple.
9.However, the District Revenue Officer by his proceedings dated
30.04.2018 passed orders prohibiting the petitioner from carrying on the
construction of a compound wall to protect the property by holding that the lands
are being used by the general public. He had also recorded a finding that the
petitioner had not produced any documents of title. According to her, such a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
finding is itself contrary to the report filed by the Assistant Director cum Personal
Assistant to the Collector. Hence, being aggrieved against the same, the petitioner
had preferred W.P.(MD) No.15226 of 2018 and this Court by its order dated
30.07.2018 had granted an order of interim stay of operation of the impugned
order on the prima facie finding that there are revenue records to establish that
the land in S.No.187 belongs to the temple. The learned Judge also on finding
that there has been recommendation forwarded to the District Collector had
directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders based on the
recommendation dated 28.12.2017.
10.Pursuant to the said direction, the District Collector had taken up the
issue and had given a finding that the report of the Assistant Director is contrary
to the complaint made in the petition and therefore, the same could not be
accepted. Thereafter, he had proceeded to re-classify the revenue records to
reflect that the lands are ‘Dharma Sasanam’. He had also held that the lands
should be utilized by the public in general and that the construction of the
compound by the temple administration would affect the customary easement and
prohibited the petitioner temple from constructing the wall.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
11.According to her, the District Collector had rejected the report of his
own Officer based on the averments made in the complaint. He had not conducted
any independent enquiry to find out whether the averments made in the complaint
are true and the report of the Assistant Director is contrary to the findings in such
enquiry. When that has not happened, the rejection of the report is a colorable
exercise of power by the District Collector. She would further submit that the
temple had been issued with riotwari patta under Act 26/63 Act. When that being
the position, the District Collector has no jurisdiction to revisit the same, as it is
only the prescribed authority under Act 26/63, who can revisit. Hence, the
interference of the District Collector in the revenue records relating to the
petitioner’s title in S.No.187 is without jurisdiction and on that ground alone, the
same should be set aside.
12.The other finding given by the District Collector is that by the custom
and usage, the public are using the place belonging to the petitioner temple. The
said finding is without any evidence whatsoever oral and documentary except for
the averments in the complaint made by one S.R.Thangavelu. The lands were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
purchased by the petitioner temple from private individuals in the year 1914-1915
and a portion of the land was given by way of settlement by the private
individuals in the year 1956. This aspect has been completely overlooked by the
District Collector to state that there has been a custom and usage of the said land.
These lands were all private lands, which came into the possession of the
petitioner temple by way of alienation for betterment of the temple and at no point
of time, the same has been used in custom by the general public. Such a finding of
fact is to cover up arbitrary and colorable exercise of power of the District
Collector for certain extraneous considerations. Further, this temple has been
declared as a denomination temple and when that be so, the District Collector had
no right to interfere with the management and affairs of the temple. Hence, she
prayed for to set aside the orders impugned in these writ petitions.
13.Countering his arguments, the learned counsel for the seventh
respondent would submit that the general public during the Chitirai festival would
assemble in large numbers when Lord Alagar is taken to the river for rituals and
devotees would perform rituals to Lord Karuppanasamy by offering goats. The
temple deity is being worshipped by various sections of the Hindu community.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
The lands surrounding the temple were endowed by Samasthanam of
Ramanathapuram Sethupathy. The Management of the petitioner Temple is trying
to usurp the said lands by building shops and houses for the benefit of their
community. The Temple Management is also trying to encroach upon the water
bodies around the Temple including the river bed. If the action of the petitioners
Management is allowed to continue it will affect the rights of the devotees
belonging to various sects in performance of their rituals. Therefore, he would
submit that the lands in and around the temple should be protected. Hence he had
approached various authorities espousing his grievance. The first and second
respondents after conducting detailed enquiry have passed a reasonable order that
is sought to be impugned in these writ petitions. He would submit that the
judgment and decree declaring the petitioner's Temple as a denomination Temple
has been made without any proper notice to the general public. Only the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has been made parties to the
said suit. According to him, the said judgment is not binding upon the devotees.
Had a proper notice under relevant provisions of CPC been issued the said suit
would have been suitably resisted. Failure to comply with the aforesaid provision
of law would render the aforesaid judgment as a judgment in personam and not a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
judgment in rem. He would submit that the order impugned does not suffer from
any arbitrariness, perversity or colourable exercise of power for this court to issue
the writ and prayed for.
14.The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the
petitioner's Temple had not produced any valid documents to substantiate their
rights over the lands surrounding the Temple. She would further submit that the
Temple is being visited by various sections of people not only from the District
but also all parts of the State. The conduct of the Management of the Temple in
raising shops and residential buildings in the Temple land and other places and
trying to put the compound wall, would affect the customary rituals that have
been performed by the Devotees thronging the Temple during festival seasons.
Such festivities are being conducted on par with the festival being conducted at
Madurai. She would further submit that the petitioners have not obtained any
prior permission from putting up such constructions.
15.Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the lands
surrounding the Temple where originally endowed by the erstwhile Ramnad Raja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
and was classified as “Inam Tharmasasanam Land”. This land was used by the
devotees of Lord Sri Sundara Raja Perumal to perform various rituals including
Chitirai festival and that nobody has a right to dismantle the identity or make any
obstructions in any manner. She would further submit that the claim of the
petitioners that they having purchased the land and had been granted ryotwari
patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963 seems to have been made under some mistaken assumption
of facts and without verification of the original land records. She would further
submit that when the lands were originally classified before the settlement
proceedings as Inam Tharmasasanam Land, the Settlement Tahsildar ought not to
have granted ryotwari patta under Section 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams
(Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. Hence, she would
vehemently contend that the petitioners trust does not have a right over the
property and the said land should be available for the use of the general public in
the conduct of the rituals and festivities of Sri Sundara Raja Perumal and that they
are not entitled to make any constructions whatsoever in the said land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
16.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side.
17.It is an admitted fact that Sri Sundara Raja Perumal Temple has been
there for nearly 400 years. A Scheme Decree has also been evolved for the
Management of the Temple by the members belonging to Sourashtra Community
at Paramakudi even as early as in the year 1914 by a Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No.64 of 1913 on the file of the Temporary Subordinate Judge, Ramnad at
Madurai. The dispute in these writ petitions are not with regard to the
Management of the Temple, but with regard to the property surrounding the
Temple particularly S.No.187. According to the petitioners, they had purchased
the portion of the said property under two Sale Deeds of the year 1914 and 1913
and by way of a Settlement Deed of the year 1956. When settlement proceedings
were initiated under the Act 26 of 1963, the petitioners had produced documents
to show that they are private lands and that they were granted patta by the
Settlement Tahsildar - II, Kovilpatti by his proceedings dated 10.01.1969 under
Section 9(2)(a) of the said Act and that the said ryotwari patta still stands in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
name of the petitioners Temple. However, a contrary claim is made by the first
respondent claiming that the lands in S.No.187 was endowed by the erstwhile
Ramnad Raja for the devotees to perform their rituals during Chitirai festival and
the lands have been classified only as Inam Tharmasasanam Land and therefore,
the Settlement Tahsildar ought not to have held that the lands are private lands
and should not have issued patta in favour of the petitioners Temple.
18.When it is an admitted fact that a ryotwari patta has been issued under
the Act 26 of 1963, even the Revenue Authority viz., the first respondent would
not be entitled to claim that such issuance of ryotwari patta is bad as it is only
with the Authorities under the Act 26 of 1963 to revisit the issuance of such
ryotwari patta. In such a situation, it may be open to the first respondent Collector
to approach the relevant Authorities under the Act 26 of 1963 for appropriate
remedy/clarification.
19.It is not disputed by the petitioners that raising a compound wall and
other buildings is in interest for the benefit of their community. The Temple being
declared as a denomination Temple does not entitle the Management of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
Temple to utilize the property of the Temple for constructing building for the
benefit of the members of their community. It is not also disputed by the
petitioners that the Temple is being visited by members of other communities
apart from the members of Sourashtra community and that the rituals are also
being carried out by the members of other communities. When that being so, the
Management of the Temple is not entitled to put up any building in a place which
has been hither to utilised by the members of other communities to carry out their
rituals. If such action is permitted, it would definitely interfere with the custom
and usage. The Temple may be a denomination Temple but definitely not the deity
in the Temple. God is one and equal to any living being. God may be worshipped
in different forms according to the belief of a particular individual who formed a
society by themselves. A Temple could be built by a particular community but it
does not disentitle the members of other communities from worshipping the deity
in the Temple. Nor can the rituals adopted by other members of the community in
that deity could be restricted. That apart, it is the case of the seventh respondent
that during the Chitirai festivals rituals are also being made to the deity of
Karuppansamy and such rituals are being carried out in the open space around the
Temple. If entry of the general public is barred by raising a compound wall, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
would definitely affect the custom and usage of the people belonging to other
communities. Further considering the argument that the petitioners Temple had
not approached the Planning Authorities for put up a construction or a compound
wall and also considering the fact that the same has not been disputed by the
petitioners Temple either by way of producing any planning permission, I am of
the view that the petitioners Temple would not be entitled to put up any
construction as claimed by it.
20.Hence, I am of the view that the respondents ought not to have entered
into the right of the petitioners to hold the property as it is without jurisdiction,
since the patta issued in favour of the petitioners Temple was under a statutory
enactment viz., Act of 1963. The reliance placed upon by the petitioners on the
Report of the third respondent cannot also be entertained for the reason for it is
only recommendatory.
21.In fine, the impugned orders in these writ petitiones are set aside insofar
as it relates to the cancellation of patta alone and in other aspects, the impugned
orders are sustained, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed. However, there shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
Speaking : Yes / No 31.01.2023
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
MM
To
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Collectorate,
Ramanathapuram 623 503.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Collectorate,
Ramanathapuram 623 503.
3.The Sub Collector,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District 623 707.
4.The Assistant Director cum
P.A. to District Collector,
(Land Survey),
Office of the District Survey,
Ramanathapuram 623 503.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
5.Tahsildar,
Paramakudi Taluk,
Paramakudi 623 707.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
MM
common order made in
W.P.(MD) Nos.15226 and 17355 of 2018
31.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
