Madras High Court
Arulmigu Marundeeswarar ... vs The Additional Chief Secretary ... on 1 September, 2023
2023:MHC:3998
WP No.29 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01-09-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.29 of 2017
Arulmigu Marundeeswarar Thirukoil,
Represented by its Executive Officer,
East Coast Road,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-600 041. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Principal Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The Settlement Officer,
Thanjavur.
4.The Assistant Settlement Officer,
Tiruvannamalai.
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
5.R.Jayaprakash
6.M.A.A.Jaleel
7.Amirtha
8.A.Francis Stephen Xavier
9.V.Rajasekaran
10.G.Rajappan
11.S.R.Venkatachalam ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the first respondent which culminated in the impugned order dated
14.06.2016 bearing Ref.No.K1/15132/2011, quash the same in respect of
the finding on page 7 relating to the entitlement of the petitioner for patta
and direct the respondents 3 and 4 to issue Ryotwari Patta in respect of land
measuring around 72 cents in Survey No.211/17, Block No.62 and 65,
T.S.No.173 (part), 308 (part), 315 and 317 respectively, Thiruvanmiyur
Village, in favour of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Surya for
M/s.A.S.Kailasam and Associates.
For Respondents-1 to 4 : Mr.R.Ramanlaal,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
Page 2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
For Respondents-5 to 11 : Not Ready in Notice
ORDER
The order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Additional Chief
Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner is Arulmigu Marundeeswarar Thirukoil
represented by its Executive Officer. The petitioner states that one
Mr.G.Radhakrishnan father of the fifth respondent Mr.R.Jayaprakash had
claimed Ryotwari Patta for the land measuring 72 cents in Survey
No.211/17, Thiruvanmiyur Village from the fourth respondent-Assistant
Settlement Officer, who by his proceedings dated 18.03.1994 rejected the
claim of Mr.G.Radhakrishnan as time barred. Mr.G.Radhakrishnan filed WP
No.20901 of 1994 and this Court passed an order on 19.12.1994, directing
the fourth respondent to dispose of the petition filed by the said
Mr.G.Radhakrishnan on merits. Accordingly, final order was passed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
13.03.1995 granting Ryotwari Patta to Mr.G.Radhakrishnan in respect of 72
cents of land in Survey No.211/17, Thiruvanmiyur Village under Section
11(a) of the Act XXVI of 1948.
3. One Mr.M.A.A.Jaleel and five others filed a petition before
the third respondent against the entry made in the S.L.R., in respect of the
very same land and the said claim was rejected by the third respondent-
Settlement Officer on 23.08.1994 as time barred. Mr.M.A.A.Jaleel and five
others filed a Revision Petition before the second respondent-The Principal
Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement and the said order was
set aside and the matter was remanded back to the third respondent for fresh
enquiry. The third respondent by order dated 01.08.1995, set aside the
proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 13.03.1996 and in the process
allowed Ryotwari Patta for the said land in favour of Mr.M.A.A.Jaleel and
five others.
4. Challenging the said order granted in favour
Mr.M.A.A.Jaleel and five others by the third respondent,
Mr.G.Radhakrishnan filed a Revision Petition before the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
The second respondent by his proceedings dated 26.12.1995 set aside the
order of the third respondent dated 01.08.1995 and upheld the order of the
fourth respondent dated 13.03.1995.
5. Mr.M.A.A.Jaleel and five others filed a further Revision
Petition before the first respondent, which was allowed by an order dated
15.06.1999 and the matter was remanded to the third respondent again for
fresh enquiry.
6. The third respondent again conducted fresh enquiry on the
remanded matter and confirmed the order of the fourth respondent by his
proceedings dated 26.12.2000. Against the said order, a Revision Petition
was filed by Mr.M.A.A.Jaleel and five others, which was dismissed by the
second respondent by order dated 11.02.2008.
7. Curiously, the writ petitioner-Temple was neither shown as a
party in anyone of the proceedings nor aware of the above proceedings held
between the two groups of individuals. The petitioner came to know about
the order of the second respondent only on 11.02.2008 and thereafter they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
have initiated action to resume the subject property.
8. The writ petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the first
respondent, which was allowed, setting aside the order of the second
respondent dated 11.02.2008 and remanding the matter to the second
respondent for fresh enquiry. The second respondent passed an order dated
27.05.2011 confirming the order of the third respondent in and by which
patta had been allowed in favour of the fifth respondent-Mr.R.Jayaprakash.
9. The first respondent had taken up suo motu review of the
order of the second respondent dated 27.05.2011 and the parties had argued
the matter before the first respondent elaborately. The first respondent after
complete adjudication by affording opportunity to all the parties concerned,
issued the impugned order, wherein claim of the fifth respondent also has
been rejected. Under those circumstances, the petitioner has chosen to file
the present writ petition.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the
fact that the petitioner-Temple was unaware of the proceedings instituted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
between the private parties. The first time they came to know about the
order passed by the Authorities in the year 2008 and thereafter they have
initiated proceedings for the purpose of resuming the temple properties. Suo
motu revision initiated by the first respondent was not in consonance with
the principles and more-so the documents provided by the petitioner were
not considered. The petitioner-Temple claims that they are entitled for patta,
since the temple was holding title prior to the Abolition Act XXVI of 1948.
11. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to
establish that after the Abolition Act, the temple filed an application before
the Competent Authorities, seeking Ryotwari Patta, within the cut off date
as fixed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and
Religious Endowment Department, dated 29.06.1987. In the absence of any
proof to establish that the petitioner filed an application within the time
limit contemplated under the Government Order, there is no scope for
considering the case of the writ petitioner in view of the Abolition Act,
since after the enactment, the entire land vest with the Government.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, objected the contentions raised on behalf of
the petitioner by stating that the Government in their orders in
G.O.Ms.No.2303, Revenue Department, dated 01.09.1951 had notified the
whole Thiruvanmiyur Village, formerly in Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu
District and taken over on 01.10.1951 under the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948.
The Ryotwari Settlement in the village was introduced in the year 1960.
During the Ryotwari Settlement, the abovesaid land in S.No.211/17 was
registered as 'Dry-Assessed-Anadheenm'.
13. Two groups of individuals headed by one
Mr.G.Radhakrishnan and Mr.M.A.A.Jaleel repeatedly filed application
before the Authorities and was attempting to take away the property vested
with the Government, pursuant to the Abolition Act XXVI of 1948. In none
of the proceedings initiated by Mr.G.Radhakrishnan and Mr.M.A.A.Jaleel,
the temple was a party and more-so the status of the property was also not
adjudicated properly. Under those circumstances, finally the first
respondent-Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Land
Administration initiated suo motu review and adjudicated the entire issues
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
elaborately by affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned.
14. The order impugned dated 14.06.2016 provides history of
the case elaborately. The entire factual backgrounds were considered by the
Commissioner of Land Administration and the findings made therein
reveals that the claim of the petitioner for the subject land, requesting for
issue of patta, the Arulmigu Marundeeswarar Devasthanam had not applied
for patta on or prior to 20.08.1987 as per G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial
Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, dated 29.06.1987. The
Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 09.02.2016 in WA No.96
of 2015 has upheld the powers of the Government for fixing such limitation
period. Hence the request for grant of patta for the subject land in favour of
Arulmigu Marundeeswarar Devasthanam is also rejected as time barred.
Several such claims of the private individuals were also rejected by the
Authorities in view of the time limit fixed.
15. The subject land in Survey No.217/11, now in Block 62 and
65, T.S.No.173 (part) and T.S.No.308 (part), 315 and 317 respectively.
Thiruvanmiyur Village, Velachery Taluk, Chennai District is restored as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
'Punjai Anadheenam' as it was recorded during settlement, since the orders
passed by the Authorities in respect of the subject land had been set aside.
Under these circumstances, the Commissioner of Land Administration
directed the District Collector, Chennai to prevent any type of
encroachments in the land in Block Nos.62 and 65, T.S.No.315 and 317,
Thiruvanmiyur Village, Velachery Taluk, Chennai District and the
Tahsildar, Velachery Taluk is also directed with suitable instructions in this
regard to protect the interest of the Government over the said land forever.
16. The first respondent-Additional Chief Secretary and
Commissioner of Land Administration, while considering the orders passed
by the Subordinate Authorities, made a finding that the Commissioner of
Survey and Settlement in his order has not considered any of the points
raised in the revision petition of the temple regarding the legal validity of
the sale by which the respondent's father claimed title, which has been
discussed. There was no discussion nor the reasons are provided for
condonation of delay beyond the limitation period fixed by the Government.
17. Admittedly, there was no direction from the Court for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
granting relaxation or otherwise. Thus the Commissioner of Land
Administration arrived a conclusion that Thiru Subbaraya Chettiyar derived
his title only as Trustee of the temple and did not have any legal right to
make a private sale to the respondent's father or to anyone else without the
permission of the Board. Accordingly, the impugned order of the
Commissioner of Survey and Settlement granting patta to the respondent
was set aside. The vendor had no valid right to sell the property to the
respondent's father and therefore, the earlier orders passed by the Assistant
Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer granting patta were also set
aside.
18. The factual matrix as established in the present case would
expressly reveal that two group of persons made an attempt to secure patta
of the land vested with the Government by virtue of Abolition Act XXVI of
1948. The parties could secure some orders from the Settlement Officer and
the Assistant Settlement Officer and from the Director of Survey and
Settlement one way or the other and repeatedly the matters were remanded
back and orders were obtained without considering the facts and
circumstances in entirety. Finally, the Additional Chief Secretary and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
Commissioner of Land Administration initiated suo motu review and
elaborately considered the history of the case and set aside all the earlier
orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Settlement Officer and
the Director of Survey and Settlement.
19. The Commissioner of Land Administration has rightly
found that the lands vested with the Government and accordingly directed
the District Collector, Chennai and the Tahsildar, Velachery Taluk to
protect the Government land forever. The petitioner is unable to establish
that they have submitted any application within the cut off date as fixed by
the Government in G.O.Ms.No.714, Commercial Taxes and Religious
Endowment Department, dated 29.06.1987 and therefore, now after a lapse
of many years, the temple cannot claim any right over the property and thus
this Court is not inclined to consider the relief as such sought for in the
present writ petition.
20. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on
behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, filed Status Report stating that the subject
land is with the possession of the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
21. This being the factum, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed
to ascertain the possession of the subject land with the Government and take
necessary steps to fence the property. Since the subject land is falling within
the Chennai City Area, further actions are directed to be initiated to prevent
any encroachment or otherwise and utilise the property for the welfare of
the public at large. In this regard, the first respondent is directed to file
Compliance Report before this Court on or before 20.09.2023.
22. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
The Registry is directed to post this matter before this
Court under the caption 'For Reporting Compliance' on 20.09.2023.
01-09-2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary and
Commissioner of Land Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai-600 005.
2.The Principal Commissioner and Director of
Survey and Settlement,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The Settlement Officer,
Thanjavur.
4.The Assistant Settlement Officer,
Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.29 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 29 of 2017
01-09-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
