Madras High Court
Salamon vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 20 July, 2023
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.8520 of 2023
Salamon : Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kodaikanal Revenue Division,
Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kodaikanal Taluk,
Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Kodaikanal Taluk,
Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
4.Arcot American Mission,
Calfilling Road,
Kodaikanal Taluk,
Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
5.Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA),
Rep. by its Secretary,
C.Fernandas Rathina Raja,
CSI Centre, No.5-Whites Road,
Royapettah, Chennai. : Respondents/Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 25.04.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.4110 of 2022 on
the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Raja. Karthikeyan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
For R5 : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
Senior Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge of this Court, dated 25.04.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.4110 of
2023. In the writ petition, the petitioner prayed to quash the order dated
23.02.2022 in and by which, the Town Survey Land Register extract in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
respect of the property in S.No.6/3, Kodaikanal Town was transferred
and issued in the name of the fourth respondent from the existing land
owners. The learned Single Judge, found that originally, the patta was
standing in the name of the fifth respondent and without even any notice
to the fifth respondent was clandestinely without hearing the said
respondent was transferred in the name of the petitioner and that the
same has rightly been corrected and restored in the name of the original
owner and therefore, dismissed the writ petition.
2. Mr. Raja. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, impugning and assailing the order of the learned Single Judge
would submit that the property originally belonged to Arcot American
Mission and they had in fact left the property only to the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellant herein. As a matter of fact, only because the
property was sought to be encroached by the local people, unable to face
them, the appellant sought umbrage under the fifth respondent and taking
undue advantage thereof, now the fifth respondent itself is claiming title
to the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
3. Per contra, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that it is the fifth
respondent who is the successor of the fourth respondent and the fifth
respondent Church succeeded to all the properties, assets of the fourth
respondent to continue with their activities through the religious
conjugation established by the fourth respondent Mission. The appellant
and his father were the employees of the fifth respondent and as such
were functioning as caretakers and whileso they grew greedy and they
made an attempt to change the revenue records itself, which mistake has
been corrected.
4. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side
and perused the material records of the case.
5. Firstly, it can be seen that while the appellant is impugning the
correction of the revenue record, he has got no record whatsoever as to
how the property of the fourth respondent, namely, Arcot American
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
Mission came to be vested in the appellant and his forefathers. When title
to such a valuable properties, which is in the heart of the Kodaikanal
Town is claimed by the appellant, it remains a mystery that the appellant
and his father were working as Gardeners/Caretaker under the fifth
respondent Church. This apart, when the earlier mutation of records was
not even in accordance with Section 10 of the Patta Passbook Act, 1983
ie., when there was no any transfer inter vivos or succession, there was
no occasion for the authorities to have mutated the revenue record in
favour of the appellant or his father.
6. In that view of the matter, a fraudulent/clandestine entry has
only been corrected. If the petitioner is aggrieved by issue of patta or
mutation of the revenue record in the name of the fifth respondent
association, on the ground that he is in possession, at best, he can only
file a suit as per the proviso to Section 14 of the Patta Passbook Act,
1983 and absolutely this dispute relating to his defacto possession or
claim of ostensible title as the case may be cannot be decided either by
the revenue officials or by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view thereof, no exception
whatsoever can be taken for the findings of the learned Single Judge in
dismissing the writ petition.
7. In the result, this Writ Appal stands dismissed, however, with
liberty for the petitioner to file a civil suit and agitate his grievance if so
chooses to, before the appropriate civil Court. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
20.07.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
sji
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kodaikanal Revenue Division,
Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kodaikanal Taluk,
Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Kodaikanal Taluk,
Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
sji
WRIT APPEAL(MD)No.1108 of 2023
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
