Madras High Court
The District Collector vs /29 on 28 October, 2024
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:28.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD).Nos.1405 and 1406 of 2017
& C.R.P(MD).No.379 of 2017 and
W.P(MD).No.5773 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.10232, 10233 of 2017
& W.M.P.(MD).No.4597 of 2017
W.A(MD).No.1405 of 2017:
1. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
3. The Tahsildar,
Madurai South Taluk,
(New West Taluk),
Madurai.
4. Sri Meenakshi Sundareswar Devasthanam,
Madurai,
through its Executive Officer,
South Adi Veethi,
Madurai. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. Muthulakshmi ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2. Sivagangai Samasthanam Devasthanam,
Sivagangai through its Manager,
Sivagangai. ... Respondent
(2nd Respondent is impleaded vide common order dated 11.03.2024
made in CMP(MD).Nos.102 and 112 of 2022 in W.A(MD).Nos.1405
and 1406 of 2017)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
praying this Court to set aside the order dated 21.09.2017 in
W.P(MD).No.6941 of 2017.
W.A(MD).No.1406 of 2017:
1. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
3. The Tahsildar,
Madurai South Taluk,
(New West Taluk),
Madurai.
4. Sri Meenakshi Sundareswar Devasthanam,
Madurai,
through its Executive Officer,
South Adi Veethi,
Madurai. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
1. Alagumalai ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Sivagangai Samasthanam Devasthanam,
Sivagangai through its Manager,
Sivagangai. ... Respondent
(2nd Respondent is impleaded vide common order dated 11.03.2024
made in CMP(MD).Nos.102 and 112 of 2022 in W.A(MD).Nos.1405
and 1406 of 2017)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
praying this Court to set aside the order dated 21.09.2017 in
W.P(MD).No.6942 of 2017.
W.A.(MD).Nos.1405 and 1406 of 2017:
For Petitioners : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Special Government Pleader
(in both cases)
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Gopalan for R1
(in both cases)
: Mr.S.Manohar for R2
(in both cases)
C.R.P(MD).No.379 of 2017:
Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Etc.,
Devathanam, Madurai
Through its Executive Officer,
Having Office at South Adi Veedhi,
Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple,
Madurai. ... Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Claimant
Vs.
1. Muthuswami Thevar
3/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Gurunatha Thevar ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and
decreetal order dated 07.09.1972 in C.M.A.No.761 of 1969 on the file of
the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai (Minor Inams Abolition
Tribunal) confirming the order dated 28.06.1969 passed in SR.No.
237/M.I.Act/MDU/66 on the file of learned Settlement Tahsildar (Minor
Inams) Unit No.I, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents : R1 & R2 - Died
: Mr.T.K.Gopalan for R3 & R4
W.P(MD).No.5773 of 2017:
The Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner,
Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple Devasthanam,
Madurai. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
2. The Tahsildar,
Madurai South, Madurai.
3. Bagavathi Ammal
4. Muthulakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or
4/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned
proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.315/2015/En, dated
29.09.2016, is illegal and quash the same and further direct the
respondents 1 & 2 to mutate the revenue entires in respect of lands in
S.No.72/2, measuring 62 cents and S.No.72/5, measuring 1 acre and 64
cents situated at Kochadai Village, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai in
the name of petitioner temple within the time limit fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.AL.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam,
Special Government Pleader
for R1 & R2
: No appearance for R3 & R4
COMMONORDER
[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J]
The above intra Court writ appeals have been filed under clause 15
of Letter Patent by the government authority and Meenakshi
Sundareshwar Devasthanam.
2. The lands in the survey No.72/2 measuring 62 cents and survey
No.72/5 measuring an extent of 1 acre 64 cents situated at Kochadai
Village, Madurai West Taluk belonged to Sri Meenakshi Sundareshwar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Temple Devasthanam, Madurai. The same was entrusted with Sivagangai
Samasthanam Devasthanam to generate the income from the said temple
land and provide the said income to the temple. The temple is the title
holder of the iruvaram.
3. One Muthusami Thevar and Gurunatha Thevar have filed the
application before the settlement Tahsildar (Minor Inams) Unit No.I,
Madurai to claim the settlement patta inrespect of the above said lands
stating that they have purchased in the year 1923 the said property from
Irulayee and Rajappa Moopanar. They had been paying kist to the
Sivagangai Samasthanam. The Sivagangai Samasthanam granted the said
land to their vendor to perform the endowment attached to the idol of
Meenakshi Devasthanam. Initially the same was considered by the said
settlement Tashildar and thereafter, the same was set aside by the
appellant authority on the appeal filed by the temple and remitted back to
the settlement Tahsildar. The settlement Tahsildar after the enquiry
ordered to grant patta in the name of the Gurunatha Thevar and
Muthusamy Thevar for the specific endowment of performing
“Annaabhisekam Kattalai” i.e., kJiu kPdhl;rp Re;Nju];tuH Nfhtpy;
md;dhmgpN\f fl;lis elj;jp tu Ntz;Lk; under section 8 (1) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Tamil Nadu Minor and Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963. In the said
patta itself the character of the land is stated as “Meenakshi Sundareswar
Temple Annaabhisekam Kattalai Manniam land”.
4. The said order was challenged by the temple authority before
the tribunal constituted under the said act 30 of 1963 which had been
presided by the learned principal subordiante judge, Madurai. The
Sivagangai Devasthanam also filed the appeal challenging the same. The
said appeal in C.M.A.Nos.761 of 1969 and 766 of 1969 were dismissed
and there is no further appeal. In the said appeal the Learned Appellate
authority also confirmed that the said Gurunatha Thevar and Muthusamy
Thevar are entitled to the patta under section 8 (1) of the Act to perform
the Annaabhisekam Kattalai. Thereafter there was no further appeal.
Only now, the temple authority has filed the civil revision petition in
C.R.P.(MD).No.379 of 2017 under the Article 227 of Constitution of
India to set aside the said orders.
5. Before filing the said CRP, the said Gurunatha Thevar and
Muthusamy Thevar have filed W.P.(MD).No.6941 of 2017 before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court to issue writ of mandamus directing the 3rd appellant to issue
revenue patta to them in respect of the said survey number on the basis of
the above said order passed by the settlement Tashildar dated 28.06.1969
and confirmed in C.M.A.No.761 of 1969 by the Minor Inam Land
Abolition Tribunal dated 07.09.1972. Pending the said proceedings, there
was a partition in the family of Muthusamy Thevar in the year 1971 and
the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.6941 of 2017 father namely
Periyannan Thevar allotted to her share in the survey No.72/2 measuring
62 cents and the said Periyannan Thevar died on 22.08.1986 leaving
behind his wife Bagavathyammal and his only daughter Muthulakshmi
namely the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.6941 of 2017. The said
Muthulakshmi and her mother Bagavathyammal filed the petition before
the Tahsildar, Madurai South to issue patta in their name to the 62 cents
of the land comprised in survey No.72/2. The Tahsildar in his
proceedings in Ni.Mu.RTR.No.7510/2010 dated 13.10.2012 directed to
issue patta in their name and the same was confirmed by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Madurai in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.315/2015/N
dated 29.09.2016 and the temple appeal was dismissed and there was
further revision before the District Revenue Officers. Even after that
there was no issuance of patta. In the meantime, the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Bagavathyammal died on 13.12.2015 leaving behind the Muthulakshmi
as a sole legal heir. She filed the writ petition before this Court to issue a
writ of mandamus to issue patta in respect of the 62 cents comprised in
the survey No.72/2 of the Kochadai Village, Madurai as per the order
passed by the Tahsildar in his proceedings Ni.Mu.RTR.No.7510/2010
dated 13.10.2012 confirmed by the revenue divisional officer in his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.315/2015/N dated 29.09.2016. Similarly, the
legal heir of the Gurunatha Thevar namely Alagumalai writ petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.6942 of 2017 also filed similar petition to issue patta in
respect of the extent of the 82 cents of the land comprised in the survey
No. 72/5 and there was no order passed till 2013 and hence he filed a
writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.19593 of 2013 before this Court and this
Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 25.09.2013. Subsequently also there was no progress and hence
she filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.6942 of 2017. This
Hon’ble Court passed the following impugned order in both writ petition
in W.P.(MD).Nos.6942 of 2017 and 6941 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prayer in the W.P.(MD).No. To issue a writ of mandamus, directing the
6942 of 2017 third respondent to issue patta to the
petitioner in respect of survey No. 72/5
measuring 82 cents out of 1 acre 61 cents
sitauted at Kochadai Madurai based on the
order passed by the settlement tahsildar
(minor inam) unit No. 1, Madurai in the
proceedings in S.R.No.237/H1 Act/MDU/66,
dated 28.06.1969 and confirmed in
C.M.A.No. 761 of 1969 Principal Sub Court
(Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal), Madurai
dated 07.09.1972.
Order in the W.P.(MD).No. In view of the same this writ petitions is
6942 of 2017 disposed of and the third respondent is
directed to pass appropriate orders in respect
of the petitioner's claim for patta within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. No costs.
Prayer in the W.P.(MD).No. To issue a writ of mandamus, directing the
6941 of 2017 third respondent to issue patta to the
petitioner in respect of the land bearing
survey No. 72/2 measuring 62 cents sitauted
at Kochadai Madurai as per the order passed
by the third respondent in his proceedings
Nee.Mu.RTR.No.7510/2010, dated
13.07.2012 and the same was confirmed by
the second respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.315/2015/N, dated 29.09.2016.
Order in the W.P.(MD).No. In view of the same this writ petitions is
6941 of 2017 disposed of and the third respondent is
directed to pass appropriate orders in respect
of the petitioner's claim for patta within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. No costs.
“In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of and the third
respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in respect of the
petitioner’s claim for pattta within a period of six weeks from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs”.
6. Challenging the same, these Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD).Nos.
1405 and 1406 of 2017 have been filed by the Government and the
temple authorities.
7. In meantime the temple authority have filed the civil revision
petition in C.R.P.(MD).No.379 of 2017 under the Article 227 of
Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in C.M.A.No.761 of
1969 confirming the order dated 28.06.1969 passed in SR.No.
237/M.I.Act/MDU/66 on the file of the Learned Settlement Tashildar
(Minor Inams) Unit No.I, Madurai and this Court passed the following
interim injunction restraining the Muthusamy Thevar and Gurunatha
Thevar from alienating the said property :
“ The civil revision petition is filed against
the order of Tribunal on the ground that the said
order is vitiated as the said order obtained by
playing fraud and the property enclosed to the
Temple for Annabishegam Kattalai. Therefore,
the respondents are not entitled to claim any
right. In view of the said. Contention, there will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
an order of interim injunction. Notice”.
8. Subsequently the temple authority also filed W.P.(MD).No.5773
of 2017 challenging the order of the Tashildar and the revenue divisional
officer passed in Na.Ka.No.315/2015/En, dated 29.09.2016.
9. Since, above all cases are relating to the common issues, the
Hon’ble My Lord Chief Justice has directed to club all the cases and post
before this Court for the common hearing.
10. The learned counsel for the temple authority and the
government and Sivagangai Samasthanam made the following
submission with one voice:
10.1. The Muthusamy Thevar and Gurunatha Thevar claimed that
they have purchased the property from Irulayee and Rajappa Moopanar.
They made the application before the settlement Tashildar (minor inam)
Unit No. I, Madurai to grant settlement patta. The said authority accepted
their plea and upheld their entitlement to get the settlement patta under
section 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu (Minor & Inam) Abolition Act 30 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1963 under section 8 (1) of the said Act, they are not entitled to get patta.
The vendor of the said persons are not the Inamdhar. Only if the purchase
is made from the Inamdhar, they are entitled to make application under
section 8 (1) of the Act. Even as per the finding of the said authority and
the Learned Tribunal confirming the said original order of the authority,
the properties are under the occupation of the said Muthusamy Thevar
and Gurunatha Thevar. They paid the revenue charge to the Sivagangai
Devasthanam and the Sivagangai Devasthanam obtained the property
from the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple. Therefore, order to grant
patta under section 8 (1) of the Tamil Nadu (Minor & Inam) Abolition
Act 30 of 1963 is null and void and also illegal. Therefore, they sought to
set aside the same by allowing the above civil revision and all the
consequential direction issued in the various revenue proceedings which
are the subject matter of the writ appeal and the writ petition are non-est
in law. Even in the order of settlement Tahsildar, dated 28.06.1969, it is
directed to perform the Annaabhisekam Kattalai, and direction to issue
patta was issued. Therefore, they have no right to enter into partition
between the family members and hence they seek to allow the writ
appeal, civil revision petition in C.R.P.(MD).No.379 of 2017 and the writ
petition in W.P.(MD).No.5773 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.The learned counsel for the private respondents made the
following submissions:
11.1. Originally the land was granted in favour of Bhodagurusamy
Periyaudaya Thevar and the same was mentioned as “Sri Madurai
Meeakashi Sundareswarar Annabhishega Kattalai Bhodagurusamy
Periyaudaya Thevar” in the IFR. They further claimed that the land was
alienable one. Their ancestor namely Kattamuthu Thevar, Chockalinga
Thevar purchased the properties in the year 1905 and 1923. They had
been continuously paying kist (Theervai receipts) in favour of the
Sivagangai Zamindari recognizing their Kudivaram right. Therefore, they
made claim before the Inam Settlement Tahsildar to grant patta under the
Tamil Nadu Minor and Inam Abolition Act. “The said inam Tahsildar
accepted their case that they ancestral had been in possession of the
land with occupancy right and by paying melwaram to Sivagangai
Devasthanam”. Challenging the same both temple authority and the
Sivagangai Devasthanam preferred appeal and the same was dismissed in
C.M.A.Nos.761 of 1969 and 766 of 1969 with confirmation of the
finding that Kudivaram interest is always with the occupier and the same
was substantiated by the private respondents' ancestor and hence
direction was issued to give patta under section 8 (1) of the Act as they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
were lawfully entitled to Kudivaram and the same was not challenged by
way of the statutory appeal. On the basis of the said order, Tahsildar
south, Madurai has granted patta in favour of the legal heirs of the
claimants before the settlement tahsildar. Against which the temple
authority filed appeal before the RDO and the same was also confirmed.
At this stage, C.R.P.(MD).No.379 of 2017 has been filed before this
Court to set aside the order passed in C.M.A.Nos.716 and 766 of 1969
without filing the statutory appeal. Therefore, the CRP is liable to be set
aside on the ground of both latches and limitation. They further
contended that the CRP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
not maintainable when the alternative remedy is available and the same
was not availed within the prescribed period of limitation and in order to
circumvent the limitation, the temple authority has filed the present CRP
which amounts to abuse of process of law.
11.2. The learned counsel for the private respondent further
submits that once the order was passed by the inam abolition tribunal in
C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969, the same conferred right of enjoyment
of the property as absolute title holder and hence they specifically made
the submission that as per the judgment of the 1986 (1) SCC 794, 1998
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2) MLJ 722 & 1988 (2) LW 513, the temple authority ought to have
filed the suit as per the provision of the HR & CE Act. They have no
right to file the CRP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India after
the 35 years from the date of the decision of C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of
1969.
11.3. The Learned counsel further submitted that the temple
authority's submission that there was no limitation as per the section 109
of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act to
recover the temple immovable properties belonging to the religious
institution and hence they have right to challenge the same under article
227 of the Constitution of India by way filing the CRP ought to be
rejected on the ground that the both said HR & CE Act and the Tamil
Nadu Minor and Inam Abolition Act occupy different field and in the
inam abolition Act there is a specific provision to file statutory appeal
before this Court withing the period of maximum 60 days. Therefore, to
challenge the order of the C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969, the provision
of the HR & CE Act ought not have been invoked. Hence, they seek to
reject the said contention.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.4. The Learned counsel further submitted that without any
challenge of the order passed in C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969, the
revenue department has correctly granted patta in favour of the writ
petitioner namely “Muthulakshmi” and direction was issued to grant
patta in favour of another legal heir Alagumalai. Hence, all the writ
appeals and writ petitions filed by the both government and temple
authority ought to be dismissed.
12. By way of reply, the Learned counsel appearing for the temple
authority and Devasthanam and government would submit that it is true
that under the minor inam of abolition Act there is a period of limitation
to file the statutory appeal but for some other reason the same had not
been filed and there is no legal impediment to file the CRP under Article
227 of Constitution of India. To file the CRP under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, there was no limitation and the persons have the
alternative remedy is not a ground to file the CRP under Article 227 of
the constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a
special provision to redress the illegalities and perpetual fraud.
Therefore, they seek to set aside the order by exercising the parens
patriae jurisdiction. The tribunal without considering the material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
documents namely IFR and other title deed and also the presumption
under section 44 of the Inam Abolition Act and the purchase that was
made not from the inamdhar and entire claim was made on the basis of
the sale deed dated 16.03.1923, 28.09.1981 and 27.03.1905 and even as
per the finding of the inam Special Tahsildar original authority.
Melvaram alone granted and there is no Iruvaram and therefore the
presumption under section 44 of the Inam abolition Act comes. In the
said circumstances the land's character was Devadayam and granted only
for the Annaabiseka Kattalai and therefore the said lands are not
alienable one and they are not entitled to get revenue patta. In the said
circumstances to question the order under Article 227 of Constitution of
India is maintainable. They would also submit that when the Special Act
namely Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act and the Inam of Abolition Act is
involved to decide the issue the object of both the Acts are to be looked
into. Upon considering the object, the provision of the HR & CE Act has
to be considered. Hence, their limitation under section 109 is applicable.
Hence they seek to set aside the order in C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of
1969 and consequently seek to set aside all the impugned orders in W.P.
(MD).Nos 6941, 6942 of 2017 and the Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD).Nos.
1405 and 1406 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.1.Thiru.Shanmuganathan the learned counsel for the appellant
to substantiate his argument placed the following precedents:
1 Order passed in C.M.P.(MD).No.10861 of 2016
2 1974 87 LW 652
3 1978 LW 142
4 1993 (4) SCC 519 (supp)
5 AIR online 2019 MAD 1169
6 2007 0 AIR (SC) 1546
7 1992 3 SCC 14
8 2006 1 SCC 257
9 2007 58 AIC 244
10 1994 0 AIR (SC) 853
11 1974 87 LW 652
12 AIR 1919 PRIVY COUNCIL 62
13 Order passed in W.P.Nos. 6664 & 14074 of 2021
14 1991 Supp (2) SCC 228
15 1995 Supp 4 SCC 87
12.2.Thiru.T.K.Gopalan learned counsel for the private
respondents to substantiate his argument placed reliance on the following
precedents:
1 AIR 1986 1 SCC 794
2 1998 2 MLJ 722
3 1998 2 LW 513
4 2019 6 CTC 814
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 Executive Officer of Magudeswarar
Veeranarayana Temple, Kodumudivs
Sadayappagounder and ors (S.A.No.769/1990)
6 Director of survey and settlement survey house
and others Vs Srinivasarao (W.A.No. 3178 of
2019)
13. This Court considered rival submission and their written
submissions and perused the records and all the impugned orders and the
precedents relied upon them.
14. Both the parties to the proceedings made the lengthy
submission and also filed their written submission. From the written
submission of the private respondent, it is clear that on extent of 62 cents
comprised in the survey number of the 72/2 and 1 acre 64 cents of the
land comprised in survey number 72/5 situated in the Kochadai Village,
Madurai has been granted as a inam for the performance Annaabisega in
Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple at Madurai. The same was noted in
the Inam favour register as “Sri Madurai Meeakashi Sundareswarar
Annabhishega Kattalai Bhodagurusamy Periyaudaya Thevar”. The
private respondents argued that the said lands are alienable one and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
hence their ancestors purchased in the year 1891, 1905 and 1923 are
valid one and hence they are the absolute owners of the property and they
had been continuously paying the kist to the Sivagangai Devasthanam
and hence, the settlement officer (original authority) under the Tamil
Nadu Minor Inam and Abolition Act correctly decided their entitlement
under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam and Abolition Act and recognized
their right of Melvaram and correctly issued direction to give patta and
the same was confirmed in C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969.
15. This Court is unable to accept the said argument of the learned
counsel for the private respondents. Once the land is granted for the
purpose of specific religious endowments i.e., “to perform the
Annaabisega Kattalai at Madurai Meenakshisundareswarar temple”, the
title of the land is absolutely vested with the temple. Therefore, the lands
are not alienable one. Therefore, the case of the private respondent that
their ancestors purchased the property from the legal heir of the said
Bhodhagurusamy Periya Udayar Thevar under the various sale deeds are
illegal for the reason that the said Bhodhagurusamy Periya Udayar
Thevar had no right to alienate the same and he was not the “inamdhar”.
As per the section 8 (1) of the Tamilnadu Minor and Inam Abolition Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the purchaser from any inamdhar alone have right to make the
application under the minor inam and abolition Act before the special
tahsildar (original authority) under the Tamil Nadu Minor and inam
Abolition Act. In this case, the present private respondents legal heirs
have not purchased the property from the temple authority. They have
had transaction with the Melvaram holder. Further, during the course of
the proceedings, both before the settlement officer and special tribunal,
the submission of the private respondents ancestor was that they had
been paying kist to the Sivagangai Samasthanam. The temple properties
entrusted with the Sivagangai Samasthanam are to manage and generate
the income. The ancestor of the private respondents paid the kist to the
Sivagangai Samasthanam as a occupier of the said land. Therefore, they
have no absolute right over the property. Hence their claim on the basis
of the C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969 to get revenue patta is without
any legal right and hence the revenue patta granted in favour of the
private respondents (Mrs. Bagavathyammal and Mrs.Muthulakshmi) in
W.P.(MD).No.5773 of 2017 is illegal and hence is liable to be set aside.
15.1. Similarly, the direction of the writ Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.
6941 and 6942 of 2017 are also liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15.2. To entertain the plea of the temple authority to set aside the
order passed in the C.M.A.(MD).Nos.761 and 766 of 1969, this Court
has considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
1986 (1) SCC 794, Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court reported in 1998 (2)
MLJ 722. As per the principle laid down in the above cases, the finding
and order passed in C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969 under the
proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Minor and Inam Abolition Act is not a bar
to initiate the civil proceedings for recovery of the possession of the
temple property or any other proceeding either under Section 41 of Tamil
Nadu HR & CE Act or 21(7) of the Tamil Nadu Minor and Inam
Abolition Act.
15.3. That apart as per the section 41 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE
Act and 21 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Minor and Inam Abolition Act both
government and temple authorities have independent power to recover
the subject matter of the properties of C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sankaranarayanaswami Devasthanam
case in Civil Appeal No.2671 of 2013 has held that the once a grant is
burdened with service, then the right of resumption under section 21 (7)
of the Act is always there. The private respondent's claim on the basis of
their ancestor's purchase from the service holder of the persons and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
further claim of occupancy under the control of the Sivagangai
Samasthanam as a dedicated property to perform Annabisegam all should
have been subjected to the further course of action as per law. In the said
circumstances the adjudication under the CRP is not necessary. In all
circumstances it is open to temple authority to recover the property from
the private respondent either by filing suit or invoke the provision of the
41 of the HR & CE Act are 21 of the Minor and Inam Abolition Act.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of all the above cases in the
following terms:
15.3.1. Admittedly, the land is dedicated “to perform the
Annaabisega Kattalai at Madurai Meenakshisundareswarar temple” and
therefore the said lands are specific religious endowment and nobody has
right of alienation.
15.3.2. As per the section 109 of the HR & CE Act the temple
authority has power to file suit at any time to recover the property and the
civil Court has independent power to reside the title of the property
dehors the finding of the settlement authority and the settlement tribunal
in C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969 and therefore, the finding in
C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969 that the Section 8 (2) of the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Minor and Inam Abolition Act it is not necessary and to purchase from
the inamdhar and to claim the patta it has to be independently assessed in
the civil suit.
15.3.3. The revenue authority has no right to grant patta in favour
of the private respondents and the land was dedicated to perform the
“Annaabisega Kattalai at Madurai Meenakshisundareswarar temple” and
therefore mutation made in the individual names is not in accordance
with law and hence, it is liable to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD).Nos.1405 and
1406 of 2017 are allowed in the following terms:
16.1. The order passed in the W.P.(MD).Nos.6941 and 6942 of
2017 are hereby set aside.
16.2. But, the private respondent's possession is not liable to be
disturbed by the Government and temple authority until they are
dispossessed as per the manner discussed in this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. Accordingly, these writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.5773 of 2017
is allowed in the following terms:
17.1. The direction to issue revenue patta in favour of the private
respondent (Muthulakshmi and Bagavathyammal) by proceedings dated
29.09.2016 in proceedings Na.Ka.No.315/2015/En is hereby quashed.
17.2. It is open to the said Muthulakshmi to substantiate her claim
of absolute title on the basis of the partition deed before the appropriate
civil Court.
18. Accordingly this civil revision petition in C.R.P.(MD).No.379
of 2017 is disposed with the following direction:
18.1. In view of the admitted position that the lands are dedicated
to perform “Annaabisega Kattalai at Madurai Meenakshisundareswarar
temple” and the same is specific religious endowment and it is open to
the temple authority to resume the land as per law dehors the finding in
the C.M.A.Nos.761 and 766 of 1969 confirmed in settlement officer
proceedings either under Section 21(7)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Inam and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Minor Abolition Act or 41 of the HR & CE Act or filing separate suit for
recovery of possession. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed and
the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
[V.B.S.J.,] [K.K.R.K.J.,]
28.10.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
vsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
3. The Tahsildar,
Madurai South Taluk,
(New West Taluk),
Madurai.
4. The Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner,
Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple Devasthanam,
Madurai.
5.The Special Government Pleader,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
and
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN. J.,
vsg
W.A.(MD).Nos.1405 and 1406 of 2017
& C.R.P(MD).No.379 of 2017 and
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.10232, 10233 of 2017
Dated :28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
