Madras High Court
G.Rajesh Kanna vs The District Collector on 7 June, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.2751 of 2023
G.Rajesh Kanna ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The District Collector,
Collector Office,
Madurai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
H.R.& CE Department,
Plot No.49, M.R.B.Nagar,
Seelapadi Post (Near Police Quarters),
Mullipadi,
Dindigul 624 005.
3.The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Kathali Narasinga Perumal Temple,
H.R.& CE Department,
Ammaiyanaickanoor,
Nilakottai 624 208,
Dindigul District.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
4.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
T.Vadipatti,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned letter issued by the 3rd respondent dated 20.12.2022 and quash the
same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis
and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to instruct the Sub Registrar Office,
Vadipatti to register any document relating to 1.60 acres comprised in S.No.395/2
Kulasekaran Kottai Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District within time frame
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Vellaichamy
For R1 & R4 : Mr.D.Ghandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R2 & R3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter issued by the
third respondent dated 20.12.2022, quashing the same on the ground that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and consequently directing
the third respondent to instruct the Sub Registrar Office, Vadipatti to register any
document relating to 1.60 acres comprised in S.No.395/2 Kulasekaran Kottai
Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that the total extent of 3.20 acres in S.No.
395/2 was granted to the third respondent temple as “Malai Katti Inam” (service
inam for supplying garlands and flowers). The land in question is therefore the
service inam land. A father and the son duo were performing the services. With
the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 on 15.02.1965, an enquiry was conducted by the
Settlement Tahsildar. By an order dated 23.10.1968, he had granted patta to the
third respondent temple under Section 8(2)(ii) r/w Section 11(2) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order, the said Rengaiah and his son, R.T.Ponnadi had filed
C.M.A.No.301 of 1970 on the file of the Inam Abolition Tribunal. By order dated
30.10.1970, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the
Settlement Tahsildar for fresh consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
3.After the remand, the temple had filed their objections and following a
detailed enquiry, the Settlement Tahsildar had granted patta in favour of the son,
R.T.Ponnadi, since Rengaiah had passed away by then. This order had become
final and conclusive. Thereafter R.T.Ponnadi exercised his option to get himself
discharged from the service and got his name under Section 21(3) of the Act.
4.On 30.08.1972, R.T.Ponnadi had sold the property to the petitioner's
mother, G.Saraswathi Ammal, who died on 25.05.2021. Meanwhile, the Tahsildar,
Nilakottai had given a discharge certificate stating that the entire amount has been
paid by reason of which the vendor of the petitioner's mother had become the
absolute owner of the land. The sale in favour of the petitioner's mother was also
recognized and patta was granted in her name. Out of the extent of 3.20 acres,
Saraswathi Ammal had sold an extent of 1.60 acres to third parties, who have got
the revenue records mutated in their names and are in possession and enjoyment
of the same. The remaining extent continued to be in the possession and
enjoyment of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
5.It appears that one Vadamalai Rengapan had filed a suit O.S.No.393 of
1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai for declaration and
injunction against the petitioner's mother. The trial Court had dismissed the suit,
against which the said Vadamalai Rengapan had filed A.S.No.185 of 1995 on the
file of the Principal District Court, Madurai. The learned Principal District Judge,
Madurai had allowed the appeal on 01.11.1996. The petitioner's mother had
challenged the said judgment and decree in S.A.No.632 of 1997 on the file of this
Court. By judgment dated 25.10.2018, the second appeal was allowed and the
title of the petitioner's mother to the suit schedule property was confirmed.
6.However, when the petitioner was attempting to alienate the property, he
came to learn that the third respondent without verifying the records informed the
Sub Registrar Office, Vadipatti that no document should be entertained for
registration. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.02.2022 before
the third respondent requesting them to withdraw the letter sent to the Sub
Registrar Office, Vadipatti. Since there was no response to the representation, the
petitioner had filed W.P.No.5814 of 2002 for disposing of his representation,
which prayer was granted by this Court. However, the same has not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
complied with. Therefore, a contempt petition was also moved, pursuant to which
the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 came to be passed by the third respondent
rejecting the petitioner's request and stating that the land belonged to the temple.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
7.After hearing the parties on either side, this Court had directed the third
respondent to produce the records relating to the title of the temple to the
property. However, no document has been produced and the fourth respondent has
today produced the 'A' Register Extract pertaining to the village, in which the
property is situate and a perusal of the same would show that the petitioner's
mother, G.Saraswathi Ammal is shown as a registered owner of the lands
comprised in S.No.395/2 in patta No.251.
8.It is rather surprising that despite overwhelming documentary evidence
showing the right of the petitioner and his predecessor in title and there being no
evidence on the side of the temple, it is not known as what evidence had
prompted the fourth respondent to pass the impugned order. Therefore, taking into
account the fact that the civil Court has declared the title of the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
predecessor in title and the entries in the revenue records, the impugned order of
the third respondent dated 20.12.2022 is set aside. The third respondent is
directed to register any document that is being presented by the petitioner in
respect of the aforesaid property within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
Speaking : Yes / No 07.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
mm
To
1.The District Collector,
Collector Office,
Madurai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
H.R.& CE Department,
Plot No.49, M.R.B.Nagar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
Seelapadi Post (Near Police Quarters),
Mullipadi, Dindigul 624 005.
3.The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Kathali Narasinga Perumal Temple,
H.R.& CE Department,
Ammaiyanaickanoor,
Nilakottai 624 208,
Dindigul District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
T.Vadipatti,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
P.T.ASHA, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.2973 of 2023
07.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
