Madras High Court
Ramachandran vs The Special Officer / District ... on 3 October, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.1129 of 2020
Ramachandran ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Special Officer / District Revenue Officer,
(Temple Lands),
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Ellis Nagar,
Madurai-625 016.
2.The Inspector,
Arulmiku Kurunadha Swami Temple, Errampatti,
Solavandhan Office,
Solavandhan, Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned order vide office proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A/19/2019, dated
27.09.2019 on the file of the first respondent office and quash the same.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A/19/2019, dated
27.09.2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the subject
agricultural property through a registered sale deed, dated 13.12.2012
measuring an extent of 1 Hectare and 64 Ares, situated at Errampatti
Village, Madurai District from one Krishnan. Thereafter, the petitioner
claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property and patta was
also standing in the name of the vendor of the petitioner in Patta No.671.
The further case of the petitioner is that the first respondent issued an
enquiry notice on 24.09.2019 and directed the petitioner to appear for an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
enquiry on 27.09.2019. The petitioner on receipt of the notice appeared
before the first respondent with available documents. The first respondent
issued the impugned proceedings, dated 27.09.2019, thereby, patta with
respect to the subject property was directed to be transferred to the name of
Arulmigu Kurunadha Swami Temple. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the entire proceedings were conducted in a hasty
manner by the first respondent without affording sufficient opportunity to
the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the impugned
proceedings of the first respondent suffers from violation of principles of
natural justice.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
title to the property is traceable to the vendor of the petitioner in whose
name, the patta was granted in Patta No.671. That apart, it was contended
that the substantial right of the petitioner is involved and it cannot be
decided in such a hasty manner by the first respondent. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
learned counsel for the petitioner sought for the remand of the case back to
the file of the first respondent.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondents submitted that the ryotwari patta was issued for
the subject property in favour of the Temple by the proceedings, dated
08.03.1968 under Section 8 (ii) of the Act 30 of 1963. The learned counsel
submitted that this property cannot be dealt with and if any encumbrance is
created, the same will not bind the Temple. It was further contended that
even if the property was dealt with, it can be done only after getting
necessary permission from the Commissioner under Section 34 of the
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Therefore, it was contended that the patta that was given in favour of the
vendor of the petitioner is illegal and no title had passed on to the
petitioner by virtue of the sale deed, dated 13.12.2012 and hence, the
learned counsel sought for dismissal of this Writ Petition.
7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made
on either side and the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
8. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the first respondent had issued the impugned
proceedings in a hasty manner without affording sufficient opportunity to
the petitioner. If this Court is to act upon this submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, primarily, this Court must be satisfied
that there is an issue which requires contest before the first respondent.
The audi alteram partem theory has some exceptions and one such
exception is called as useless formality theory. This theory states that there
must be some purpose in following the principles of natural justice. If
even granting an opportunity to a person, will yield the same result, there is
no need to strictly go by the audi alteram partem theory. Useful reference
in this regard can be made to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2007 SCC 529. Yet another
Judgment that can be relied upon is in the case of Dharampal Satyapal
Limited Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and
Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
9. The above judgments can be squarely applied to the facts of
the present case. In the instant case, ryotwari patta was already issued in
favour of the Temple through proceedings of the settlement Tahsildar,
dated 08.03.1968 under Act 30 of 1963 and this proceeding has become
final. In view of the same, the transactions that had taken place between
the private parties in utter disregard to the ryotwari patta granted in favour
of the Temple, will not bind the Temple. That apart, even if this property
is to be dealt with, permission must be taken from the Commissioner under
Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959. In view of the same, even if the matter is
remanded back to the file of the first respondent, the result that will be
arrived at by the first respondent will be the same. The scope of
Melvaram and Kudivaram Rights was dealt with in detail by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Kandasamy Vs,. Sri Ranganathaswamy
reported in 2023-2-LW 317. Therefore, useless formality theory will apply
to the facts of the present case and no useful purpose will be served in
remanding the matter back to the first respondent with a direction to
provide opportunity to the petitioner since the first respondent will once
again reach the very same result.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
10. In view of the above discussion, the contention made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner requesting this Court to remand the
matter back to the file of the first respondent is un-sustainable. The first
respondent has already made it clear in the impugned proceedings, dated
27.09.2019, that the petitioner will have to work out his remedy only
before the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the petitioner can only avail
the remedy before the Civil Court. In fact, the only remedy that is
available to the petitioner, since a patta has already been granted in favour
of the Temple is a Civil Court which is not barred from dealing with the
title to the property in spite of the patta being granted under the Act.
Useful reference can be made to the Judgment of this Court in the case of
Venkataramana and others Vs. N.Munuswamy Naidu and Others
reported in 2010 (4) CTC 640.
11. In view of the same, this Court does not find any ground
to interfere with the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent
in Na.Ka.No.A/19/2019, dated 27.09.2019 and accordingly, this Writ
Petition stands dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner to work out his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
remedy before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.10.2023
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
tsg
To
1.The Special Officer / District Revenue Officer,
(Temple Lands),
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Ellis Nagar,
Madurai-625 016.
2.The Inspector,
Arulmiku Kurunadha Swami Temple, Errampatti,
Solavandhan Office,
Solavandhan, Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
tsg
W.P.(MD)No.1396 of 2020
03.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
