Madras High Court
Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam vs Arulraj on 21 October, 2024
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
SA(MD)No.582 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
SA(MD)No.582 of 2024
and
CMP(MD) No.13223 of 2024
Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam,
Thiruvavaduthurai
through its Adheenakarthar Sri-La-Sri Ambalavana Pandara
Sannithi Avergal
having its head office at Thiruvavaduthurai,
Mailaduthurai Taluk,
Nagappattinam District.
... Appellant/Appellant / Plaintiff
Vs.
Arulraj
... Respondent / Respondent / Defendant
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2017
made in AS.No.13 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District confirming the judgment and
decree dated 29.10.2011 made in OS.No.367 of 2002 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif, Ambasamudram.
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Sanjeev Kumar for
M/s.OJAS Law Firm
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD)No.582 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam, through its Dharmakartha, has
filed this second appeal as against the judgment and decree passed by
the District Munsif, Ambasamudhram, in OS.No.367/2002 dated
25.02.2011 and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate
Court / Sub Court, Ambasamudhram, in AS.No.13/2012 dated
24.03.2017.
2. The Aadhenam / plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of
possession of the suit 2nd schedule property and for damages for illegal
occupation and mesne profit for the subject property situated in
Sivanthipuram village that the plaintiff is the owner of the property.
The case of the defendant is that Sivanthipuram village is an Inam
Village and he was the cultivating tenant and he is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property by constructing a residential
building.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The trial Court, by considering the earlier proceedings under the
Inam Abolition Act, dismissed the suit. The appellate Court has also
considered the ryotwari patta issued in the name of the other land
holders, rejected the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal.
4.Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Aathenam
has pre-existing right, by virtue of the Inam Deed in No.202/1864. The
plaintiff institution is a Mutt and as per Section 2(2S) of Tamil Nadu
Public Properties Act, the grant conferred in the name of
Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam cannot be questioned. The Adheenam
has leased out the lands to the tenants and taking advantage of the
same, some of the tenants have obtained patta during the inam
proceedings.
5.This Court considered the submissions of the learned Counsel
for the appellant, the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal
and the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.1 Sivanthipuram Village in Ambasamudram Taluk of Tirunelveli
District was notified as Inam Village under Section 1(4) of the Tamil
Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwar) Act, 1963,
(T.N.Act 26 of 1963) and taken over by the Government on 15.04.1965.
The entire inam estate (including all communal lands and porombokes,
other non-ryoti lands, waste lands, pasture lands, forest, mines and
minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and ooranies (including
private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works, fisheries stand
transferred to the government and vested in them free of all
encumbrances from the above notified date.
6.2.Against the action of taking over the inam estate,
Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam filed an appeal before the Settlement
Officer, Madurai questioning the nature of tenure of inam estate.
Dismissing the appeal, the settlement officer, Madurai in his order in
S.R.5/Amb/67, dated 15.07.1971 held that the village as an Existing
Inam Estate. Aggrieved by that order, the Adheenam filed an appeal
before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Tirunelveli. The Inam Abolition
Tribunal in its order in RA.No.165/71, dated 23.09.1974 confirmed the
order of Settlement Officer, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.3. The Adheenam filed a further appeal before this Court
contending that the declaration of the village as an existing Inam Estate
is against law. This Court, upholding the orders of the Inam Abolition
Tribunal, Tirunelveli disposed the appeal by its order in CRP.No.3771 of
1974, dated 24.11.1974, thereby giving effect that on and from the
notified date the entire Inam Sivanthipuram Estate shall stand
transferred to the Government and vest in them free from all
encumbrances.
6.4.Thereafter the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai initiated
suo motu proceedings under Rule 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates:
Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965 and passed orders
in SR.Nos.1 to 592 /Amb/79, dated 02.04.1980 granting patta to the
Adheenam for the entire Sivanthipuram village including the communal
lands (Poramboke Lands).
6.5.As against this order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, an
appeal was filed by 111 cultivators of Sivanthipuram village before the
Inam Abolition Tribunal, Tirunelveli. The Inam Abolition Tribunal in its
order RAIAT.No. 5 of 1980 dated 31.01.1984, set aside the orders of the
Assistant Settlement Officer and remanded the case to the Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Settlement Officer for conducting fresh enquiry on the grounds that
sufficient opportunities had not been given to the appellants and pattas
were granted to the Adheenam by the Assistant Settlement Officer for
the buildings constructed and enjoyed by the appellants and pattas were
given even for the communal lands in the name of Adheenam, which
are basically not correct. Aggrieved on the order of remand of Inam
Abolition Tribunal, the Adheenam filed an appeal in STA.No.51 of 1984
before this Court. This Court has upheld the order of the Inam Abolition
Tribunal in its order dated 05.09.1996 and dismissed the appeal filed by
the Adheenam that there was no proper notice to the claimants and
therefore, the order of remand made by the Tribunal deserves to be
sustained. The Division Bench of this Court upheld that there are 592
claimants agitating for grant of patta in respect of their individual
holdings on the ground that they are ryots and cultivating the lands for
a long time and the entitlement of the parties have not been considered
individually by taking up various claims.
6.6.Pursuant to this order, the Assistant Settlement Officer
conducted a fresh enquiry by issuing notice to the Adheenam and 111
claimants, who filed RAIAT.No. 5 of 1980 and the same was questioned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in WP.No.42572 of 2002 by the remaining 481 claimants that they also
need to be enquired by the Assistant Settlement Officer. Therefore, the
Assistant Settlement Officer issued enquiry notice to all the 592
claimants for the enquiry.
6.7.The plaintiff Adheenam once again filed another writ petition
in WP(MD)No.1278 of 2006 as against the proceedings of the Assistant
Settlement Officer to conduct enquiry as per the order of the Inam
Abolition Tribunal, Tirunelveli in RAIAT.No. 5 of 2006, dated
31.01.1984. In view of the interim order granted by this Court in
WP(MD)No.1278 of 2006, the enquiry of the Assistant Settlement Officer
was stayed pending writ petition. Subsequently, WP(MD)No.1278 of
2006 was dismissed by this Court on 17.10.2012 directing the Assistant
Settlement Officer to proceed with the enquiry and permitted the
appellant Adheenam and parties to whom notices have been issued, to
produce oral and documentary evidence before the Assistant Settlement
Officer.
6.8.Pursuant to the above order, the Assistant Settlement Officer
started a fresh enquiry and issued notice in Form No.V to all the persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
including the Adheenam and the Assistant Settlement Officer has
conducted a field Inspection.
6.9.Pending this enquiry the plaintiff Adheenam submitted a
representation to the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement,
requesting a copy of the records submitted by the Adheenam during the
statutory enquiry conducted by the then Assistant Settlement Officer,
Madurai in SR.Nos.1 to 592 /Amb/79 and approached this Court by
filing a writ petition in WP(MD)No.13980 of 2015 seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the Assistant Settlement Officer, Office of Survey
and Settlement, Madurai to send the entire files and records in respect of
the proceedings in SR.Nos.1 to 592 /Amb/79 to the Assistant Settlement
Officer (Chennai, South).
6.10.The plaintiff Adheenam has also filed another writ petition
before this Court in WP(MD)No.896 of 2016 seeking for a direction to
the Assistant Settlement Officer, not to pass any orders till the disposal
of the writ petition in WP(MD)No.13980 of 2015 pending before this
Court. He also sought for an interim relief in WMP(MD)No.684 of 2016
and this Court has granted an order of interim stay by order dated
18.01.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.11.Both the writ petitions filed by the plaintiff Adheenam in
WP(MD)No.13980 of 2015 and 896 of 2016 were disposed by this Court
on 02.03.2016 observing that the appellant / plaintiff had already
participated in the enquiry and submitted his written arguments and it
is for the Assistant Settlement Officer to look into all the files relevant to
the documents and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
6.12.In the meantime, the Assistant Settlement Officer
(Chennai, South), Office of the Director of Land Revenue Survey and
Settlement, Chepauk rejected the request of the Adheenam that
Adheenam has not filed any document in support of his claim and
granted patta in favour of the individuals by order dated 10.12.2015.
6.13.This order of the Assistant Settlement Officer,
dated 10.12.2015 was challenged by the plaintiff Adheenam in a batch of
writ petitions in WP(MD)Nos.21718 to 21712 of 2016 and the same was
disposed of by setting aside the orders of the Assistant Settlement
Officer dated 10.02.2015 and remanding the matter for fresh
consideration to the Assistant Settlement Officer (South Chennai in
charge) with a direction to the Assistant Settlement Officer to ensure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before proceeding to hear the parties that all the documents filed by
both parties are available on record.
6.14. This Court has also granted liberty to all the parties to
produce those documents. For want of documents, it appears that the
proceedings for grant of patta is still lying with the Assistant Settlement
Officer. As on date the petitioner / appellant is not having any right on
the suit schedule property and the issue is still pending with the
Assistant Settlement Officer. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Accordingly this second
appeal is dismissed, however, with liberty to the appellant to pursue his
claim based on the outcome of the proceedings, which is pending with
the Assistant Settlement Officer (South, Chennai). No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.10.2024
index : yes/ no
dsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. I Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Principal Sub Judge,
Tirunelveli.
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
B.PUGALENDHI., J
dsk
21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
