Madras High Court
The Church Of South India Trust ... vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 9 June, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.20188 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 05.06.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.20188 of 2025
and
WMP.Nos.22759 & 22761 of 2025
1. The Church Of South India Trust Association,
A Company Registered Under The Indian Company's Act 1913,
Tiruchirappalli-Thanjavur Diocese,
Rep By Its Moderator's Commissary,
Jeyasingh Prince Prabhakaran D,
Having Office At Csi Diocesan Office,
Puthur, Tiruchirappalli-620 017
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep By Its Secretary,
Revenue And Disaster Management Department,
St.George Fort, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
2.The Additional Chief Secretary
Revenue And Disaster Management Department,
St.George Fort,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600009
Page No.1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
W.P.No.20188 of 2025
3.The District Collector
Thiruvarur District,
Thiruvarur
4.The District Revenue Officer
Thiruvarur District,
Thiruvarur
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer
V.O.C Road,
Mannargudi,
Tamilnadu-614 001
6.The Tahsildar
Taluk Office Road,
Mannargudi,
Tamilnadu-614 001
7.The Sport Development Authority Of Tamilnadu
Rep By Its Member Secretary,
Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,
Raja Muthiah Road,
Periyamet, Chennai-600003
8.The Director Of School Education
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai-600006
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
records relating to the impugned G.O.(Ms)No.251, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department Land Disposal Wing, LD3(2) Section dated
19.5.2025, which was received by the petitioner on 27.05.2025, passed by
the 1st and 2nd respondents and quash the same and consequently forbear the
Page No.2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
W.P.No.20188 of 2025
respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner's
land in Ward No.1, Block No.95, Old survey No.4542 and New Survey
No.63 admeasuring an extent of 2.83.50 hectares.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Vikram Veerasamy
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General asst. by
Mr.Richardson Wilson for R1 to 7
Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, Special
Government Pleader (Education)
for R8
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.251, Revenue and
Disaster Management Department, Land Disposal Wing, LD3(2) Section,
dated 19.05.2025, passed by the first and second respondents, and
consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the petitioner in the suit property at Old Survey No. 4542, New
Survey No. 63, admeasuring an extent of 2.83.50 hectares.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner manages and
supports numerous schools, colleges, and other educational initiatives across
South India. One such institution is functioning at Mannarkudi, Thiruvarur
District, named as Findlay Higher Secondary School. This school is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
functioning from the year 1862 and it has a student strength of nearly 1100.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that Wesleyan Methodist
Missionary Trust Association, Londan was holding various immovable
properties. After the formation of the Church of South India, the trust
association decided to transfer a few of those properties to the petitioner.
Accordingly, through a transfer deed dated 11.05.1961, the trust association
transferred lands comprised in Survey Nos.4551/2, 4553/1, 4553/2, 4556,
4542 to 4548, 4554 and 4555 measuring a total extent of 11 acres and 78
cents at Mannargudi Town. This document was registered as Document
No.2146/1961 on the file of SRO, Madras – Chengalpat District. The subject
matter of the present writ petition is Survey No.4542, which carries a new
Survey No.63, measuring an extent of nearly 7 Acres. This property stands in
the name of Findlay Higher Secondary School in the 'A' Register, Village
Adangal, TSLR, etc. The school is utilising this vacant land as a playground
and for conducting various sports meet. An attempt was made by the revenue
authorities to enter the property belonging to the petitioner and conduct a
survey. On inquiry, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the
property has been classified as Government land, and so the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
authorities are contemplating taking over the said land for the purpose of
building a stadium.
4. A notice dated 15.09.2023 came to be issued to the petitioner,
calling for objections from the petitioner with respect to the proposal to
utilize the land to construct a stadium by the Sports Development Authority
of Tamil Nadu. This notice became a subject matter of challenge in
WP.No.32993 of 2023. This Court, after hearing both sides, passed a detailed
order dated 22.11.2024, and the operative portion of the order is extracted
hereunder,
“64. In such view of the matter, while this
Court is not inclined to quash the impugned notice,
however, the writ petition stands disposed of with
the following directions :-
i) Upon receipt of objections and
considering the same in accordance with law, it is
open to the respondents 1 to 3 to hand over the
requisite portion of the lands, as has been averred
in the counter of the 1st respondent, to the 4th
respondent, for the construction of a sports
stadium for public purposes by passing
appropriate reasoned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
ii) Since the land in Old S. No.4542, New TS.
No.63, Block No.95, Mannargudi Taluk, Tiruvarur
District, has all along been used as a playground
by the petitioner school as well as other schools in
the locality, the District Collector, Tiruvarur, is
directed to ensure that the balance portion of the
unused land shall be maintained by the
Mannargudi Municipality by duly fencing the
entire lands and the said portion shall be
earmarked as playground for utilisation by the
schools in the locality for the students studying in
the said schools.
iii) The portion of the land, which is allotted
to the 4 th respondent for construction of sports
stadium, shall also be made available to the
petitioner school as well as the other schools in the
locality as and when sports events are conducted
by the schools in addition to the stadium being
used for public purposes related to sports
activities.
iv) It is also made clear that since a portion
of the land has been allowed to be utilised for the
construction of a sports stadium, the balance
portion is directed to be maintained as school
playground for being utilised by all the schools in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
the locality, including the petitioner, this Court
directs the Secretary, Education Department, to
instruct all the authorities, including the Director
of School Education and Director of Higher
Education not to take any action with regard to
cancellation of recognition for the school of the
petitioner as also the other schools in the locality
citing want of space for playground.
v) Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
vi) Registry is directed to mark a copy of this
order to the Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, who shall ensure the
compliance of the directions issued by this Court at
S. No. (iv) above by its subordinate authorities.”
5. The above order was put to challenge by the petitioner in
WA.No.3575 of 2024. The writ appeal was partly allowed by order dated
06.12.2024 in the following terms:
“11. We find that the sub-paragraphs (ii) to
(iv) of paragraph 64 really run counter to the
direction contained in sub-paragraph (i), which
requires the Government to consider the objections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
and pass reasoned orders. Hence, the directions
issued in sub-paragraphs (ii) to (iv) of paragraph
64 are set aside. Consequently, the directions
issued in sub-paragraph (vi) will also go. The
Government will consider the objections of the
appellant as well as other members of the public
on their own merits, without being influenced by
any of the observations made by the learned Single
Judge in the order impugned before us and pass
orders in accordance with the Revenue Standing
Orders. It is made clear that the status quo
prevailing as on date shall not be disturbed till
official transfer is effected.”
6. Pursuant to the above order, notice was issued to the petitioner to
attend for the inquiry, and ultimately, the impugned Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.251, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Land
Disposal Wing, LD3(2) Section, dated 19.05.2025 came to be issued to the
effect that the land in question is a Government Poramboke land and it is
going to be utilized for public purposes benefiting the local people.
Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
7. Considering the limited issue involved in the present writ petition,
the same was taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
8. Heard Mr.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Vikram
Veerasamy appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned
Advocate General assisted by Mr.Richardson Wilson appearing on behalf of
respondents 1 to 7 and Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special
Government Pleader (Education) appearing for eighth respondent.
9. The main ground that was urged by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute
owner of the subject property by virtue of the transfer deed dated 11.05.1961,
and the occupation of the petitioner is also borne out by the 'A' Register,
Village Adangal, TSLR, etc. It was further submitted that the revenue
authorities cannot reclassify the land as Government poramboke behind the
back of the petitioner and in the strength of such an entry, take over the
property from the petitioner. It was further submitted that the Government
Order was issued without any application of mind and disregarding the title
document available in the name of the petitioner. If at all the Government is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
questioning the title of the petitioner, they should have filed a suit before the
civil court and sought for declaration, and they cannot resort to an indirect
method of taking over possession by making an entry in the revenue records
as if the land is a Government poramboke land.
10. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of
the respondents submitted that the earliest document that is available is of
the year 1925, and in this resettlement register, it has been mentioned that
Survey No.4542 is a school playground and that it belongs to the
Government. It was submitted that there is absolutely no indication or any
document available to prove the title of Wesleyan Methodist Missionary
Trust Association or the Findlay Higher Secondary School. Hence, the
transfer deed dated 11.05.1961 does not convey any title to the petitioner.
11. It is further submitted that right through the property has been
identified only as a Government poramboke, and curiously, an entry was
made in the TSLR in the year 2023 incorporating the name of Findlay Higher
Secondary School. This mistake that was committed was subsequently
corrected, and notice was issued to the petitioner by informing the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
that the land is a Government poramboke land and it is intended to be
utilised for constructing a stadium. Hence, when there is a very serious
dispute on the title, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner should
only approach the civil court and establish the title, and such exercise should
not be done in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, learned Advocate General sought for the dismissal of the
petition.
12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
13. The petitioner is claiming ownership over the property through a
transfer deed dated 11.05.1961 executed by Wesleyan Methodist Missionary
Trust Association. The earliest document that is available before this Court is
the resettlement register of the year 1925. Survey No.4542, which is the
subject matter in the present writ petition, is shown to be a Government land.
If that is so, it is not known as to how the trust association acquired the right
and title over the property. There is no document available to establish the
title of the trust association. Even in the transfer deed dated 11.05.1961,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
there is no explanation or recital explaining the source from which the trust
association was deriving its title. That apart, in every other revenue record, it
can be seen that the property is described as Government poramboke land.
For instance, in the gazette notification dated 24.06.1964, the ownership is
shown to be that of the Government and the usage is by Findlay High
School. Similarly, in the TSLR copy, it is shown as a school playground. As
already stated, in the resettlement register, Survey No.4542 is shown as a
Government land used as a school playground. The only entry which is taken
advantage by the petitioner is the entry that was made in the year 2023
showing the name of the school in the TSLR. It was contended on the side of
the respondent that this mistaken entry was subsequently corrected and it was
restored to its original position by showing it as Government land.
14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner had relied upon some judgments before the first
respondent, but they were not even taken into consideration while issuing the
impugned Government Order.
15. The first judgment that was relied upon by the learned Senior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
Counsel is the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
G.Satyanarayna Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
reported in 2014 SCC OnLine AP 334. By relying upon that judgment, it
was contended that where the land has been described both in the name of
the Government as well as in the name of a private party, it must be
construed as a private land, if the patta stands in the name of the concerned
person.
16. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court in Kupuswami Odayar and another Vs. Murugayyan, Narthangudi
and Others reported in 84 L.W. 120. This judgment was also relied upon for
the very same proposition of law.
17. In the considered view of this Court, this Court cannot conduct a
roving inquiry in deciding the right and title over the property in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On a prima
facie consideration of the materials placed before this Court, there is a
serious dispute regarding the title over the property in Old Survey No. 4542.
The fact that the Government is putting its foot down and stating that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
property belongs to the Government clearly challenges the title of the
petitioner. Such a stand is taken by the Government, based on the entries
made in the revenue records. When such a cloud is created on the title of the
petitioner, the petitioner has to establish the title only before the competent
civil court and seek for the appropriate relief. The challenge is now made by
the Government against the title of the petitioner based on the available
records. In the absence of any document to show as to how the trust
association became the owner of the property, more particularly when the
earliest document which is of the year 1925 reflects the fact that the land
belongs to the Government, the transfer deed by itself will not come to the
aid of the petitioner.
18. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned Government Order passed by the respondents, and this Court will
not venture into the issue of right and title over the property in the writ
proceedings. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent
civil court and establish their right and title over the property by seeking for
appropriate reliefs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
19. In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
09.06.2025
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
gd
To
1. The State Of Tamilnadu
Rep By Its Secretary,
Revenue And Disaster Management Department,
St.George Fort, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009
2.The Additional Chief Secretary
Revenue And Disaster Management Department,
St.George Fort,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600009
3.The District Collector
Thiruvarur District,
Thiruvarur
4.The District Revenue Officer
Thiruvarur District,
Thiruvarur
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
V.O.C Road,
Mannargudi,
Tamilnadu-614 001
6.The Tahsildar
Taluk Office Road,
Mannargudi,
Tamilnadu-614 001
7.The Sport Development Authority Of Tamilnadu
Rep By Its Member Secretary,
Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,
Raja Muthiah Road,
Periyamet, Chennai-600003
8.The Director Of School Education
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai-600006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
gd
Pre-Delivery Order in
09.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 02:22:55 pm )
