Madras High Court
Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple vs The Commissioner Of Land ... on 8 August, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.P.(MD) No.31261 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD) No.31261 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.26779 and 26780 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)No.4548 of 2024
Arulmigu Kallalagar Temple,
Alagar Kovil, Madurai through its
Deputy Commissioner/
Executive Officer ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Melur,
Madurai District.
5.The Sub-Registrar,
Thamaraipatty Sub-Registrar Office,
Melur Main Road, Madurai.
6.Alamelu Mangai
7.M.Dinakaran ... Respondents
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 11
W.P.(MD) No.31261 of 2023
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first
respondent in Proc.No.R2/6144647/2023 dated 30.11.2023 in respect of
property in S.No.65/1-B measuring 3.18.5 Hectares in Poikaikaraipatty
Village, Madurai District to quash the same and to direct the first
respondent to hold fresh enquiry in the modification petition filed by the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manohar
For R-1 to R-5 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
For R-6 : Mr.S.Ram Sundar Vijayaraj
For R-7 : Mr.N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel for
M/s.K.M.Pricilla Jancy
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Commissioner of
Land Administration, dated 30.11.2023 in respect of the property situate in
Survey No.65/1-B measuring about 3.18.5 hectares of Poikaikaraipatty
Village, Madurai District and to direct the first respondent to hold fresh
enquiry in the modification petition filed by the petitioner.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The proceedings before the Land Commissioner arose on a dispute
between the temple and private individuals regarding the transfer of
Registry(revenue records) in respect of the lands which were claimed to be
endowed to the temple. After going through the hierarchy, the dispute
finally reached the Land Commissioner and before the Land Commissioner,
the temple which was the writ petitioner, gave up its claim in respect of the
land situate in Survey No.65/1-B.
(ii) The respondents before the Land Commissioner however claimed
that the lands belonged to their ancestors namely Thiru.K.Paramasamy
Ambalam absolutely and a private Trust was created by him by way of a
settlement deed, dated 09.07.1940 with a direction to perform certain
dharmams during the festival months at 'Sundaraja Perumal temple' which
is popularly known as 'Kallazhagar temple' and as such, the temple is not
entitled to any right over the property in question.
(iii) The revision was disposed of by the Land Commissioner by order
dated 17.04.2014 recording the statement of the temple that it is not
making a claim in respect of Survey No.65/1-B and directing transfer of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Registry in respect of other lands in favour of the temple. Thereafter, the
property was sold by the daughter of the original owner in favour of one
Dinakaran. The said Dinakaran obtained permission for plotting out the
land and having obtained permission, executed sale deeds in favour of the
purchasers and presented the same before the fifth respondent. The fifth
respondent had registered certain documents however by a communication
dated 05.07.2018, refused to register the document since a claim was made
by the temple that it is the owner of the property.
(iv) The said check slip issued by the fifth respondent was challenged
in W.P(MD)No.20701 of 2018. This Court set aside the said communication
relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi
Kumar vs. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner, HR & CE
Department reported in 2017(3) CTC 135 and directed the Sub-Registrar
to follow the procedure prescribed by this Court in the said judgment and
pass orders afresh. Since the fifth respondent did not pass orders, a
contempt petition came to be filed. Pending the said contempt petition, the
fifth respondent passed an order without reference to the direction issued by
this Court in W.P(MD)No.20701 of 2018 quoting a paragraph in Sudha
Ravi Kumar's case, out of context directed the seventh respondent to
approach the civil Court. This order is subject matter of separate
proceedings. Since an oder was passed, the contempt petition was closed
with liberty to challenge the said order. Thereafter, in the year 2021, the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
temple filed an application before the Land Commissioner seeking to re-open
the revision petition and to modify the order on the ground that the temple
is entitled to the land in Survey No.65/1-B also as there was an absolute
dedication in favour of the temple under the settlement deed, dated
09.07.1940. The said modification application came to be rejected by the
Land Commissioner on merits and also on the ground of delay. It is that
order of the Land Commissioner which is under challenge in this writ
petition.
3. We have heard Mr.S.Manohar learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner temple, Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader
apearing for respondents 1 to 5. Mr.S.Ram Sundar Vijayaraj, learned
counsel for the sixth respondent and Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the seventh respondent.
4. Mr.S.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the Land Commissioner was not right in refusing
to re-open the revision petition. He would claim that reading of the
settlement deed which is of the year 1940 would demonstrate that there has
been an absolute dedication of the property in favour of the temple. The
Land Commissioner should have accepted the case of the temple that the
endorsement made in the revision stating that the temple is not claiming
any right over the land in Survey No.65/1-B was a mistake. Therefore, it
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was open to the temple to retract from the said concession given.
5. Contending contra, Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned senior counsel appearing
for the seventh respondent would submit that the revision was pending for
almost twelve years from 2002 to 2014 and it was in the year 2014, the
temple took a decision from the Land Commissioner in respect of other
lands by making it clear that it is not claiming any right over the land in
Survey No.65/1-B. Even the re-opening petition was filed only after the sale
was effected by the sixth respondent Alamelu Mangai in favour of the
seventh respondent and the original order of the Land Commissioner was of
the year 2014 (17.04.2014) and the modification application itself was filed
after the disposal of W.P(MD)No.20701 of 2018 by this Court only in the
year 2021. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, this is a
malafide attempt by the temple to backtrack on the concession given before
the Land Commissioner in the year 2014.
6. It was also contended that the very application is hit by laches.
A larger issue also may crop up as to whether the Land Commissioner being
a quasi-judicial authority is entitled to recall or reopen after the revision has
been disposed of by him by an order dated 30.11.2023. The Land
Commissioner rejected the application for reopening. It is this order of
rejection which is under challenge in this writ petition. The proceedings
before the Land Commissioner are only with reference to the revenue
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
records. The revenue records stood in the name of the vendor of the seventh
respondent and on sale, they have to be transferred in the name of the
seventh respondent. The vendor of the seventh respondent was a party to
the revision where the temple gave up its claim and therefore, the Land
Commissioner directed the revenue records in respect of all the other
properties except Survey No.65/1-B to be mutated in the name of the
temple. This order was passed in the year 2014. Nearly after seven years,
an application for modification was moved on 01.03.2021 that too after the
judgment of this Court in W.P(MD)No.20701 of 2018 and pending contempt
application, we find that as rightly contended by Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent, that is the malafide
action by the temple persons in-charge of the temple. As rightly pointed out
by the Land Commissioner in his order that the revision which is of the year
2002 was disposed of in the year 2014 and the modification application was
filed in 2021 ie., when the dispute was at least nineteen years old.
7. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the reasons assigned
by the temple for seeking modification of the order. The Land Commissioner
was perfectly justified in rejecting modification application. We would also
like to point out that the Land Commissioner entertains a revision under the
Revenue Standing Orders and he is a quasi-judicial authority. He is not a
Court. Unless he is empowered by a specific provision under the Revenue
Standing Orders to recall his order, he cannot recall his order. There is
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
complete lack of power at the hands of the Land Commissioner to recall or
modify any of his orders. They can only be challenged. Only a civil Court is
empowered to recall or modify its order and no other authority can do it in
the absence of specific provision in the Statute or the Rules governing the
power invested in such quasi-judicial authorities. No provision in the
Revenue Standing Orders has been brought to our notice which enables the
Land Commissioner to modify or recall the order passed on a concession of
a party.
8. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
08.08.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
PM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Melur,
Madurai District.
5.The Sub-Registrar,
Thamaraipatty Sub-Registrar Office,
Melur Main Road, Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
PM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
08.08.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
