Madras High Court
Ramuthai vs The District Revenue Officer on 26 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.7249 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:26.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.(MD)No.7249 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6841, 17321 & 17322 of 2023
Ramuthai : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Ellis Nagar,
Madurai – 625 016. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in
Na.Ka.No.47420/J5/2022 dated 27.02.2023 received on 04.03.2023,
and the consequential impugned order of 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 10:33:43 am )
W.P.(MD)No.7249 of 2023
47420/J5/2022 dated 24.07.2023, quash the same and consequently
direct the respondents herein to issue joint patta in the names of
"Vinayagar Temple, Bodinayakkenpatti, Vadipatti, through its
hereditary poojaries" as per the application of hereditary poojaries
dated 17.12.2021 and 10.01.2022 submitted for UDR correction to
the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya
For Respondents
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents.
2.The petitioner challenges the orders of the first respondent
dated 27.02.2023 and 24.07.2023 and consequently seeks a direction
to issue joint patta in the name of Vinayagar Temple,
Bodinayakkenpatti, Vadipatti, through its hereditary poojaries as per
the application made by hereditary poojaries dated 17.12.2021 and
10.01.2022.
3.I have also gone through the records including the impugned
orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 10:33:43 am )
4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention
to the order of the Settlement Tahsildar-II, in SR.514/M.I.
Act/NKT/68 dated 15.06.1968, where, after conducting due enquiry
under Section 11 of the then Madras Minor Inam Abolition Act, 30 of
1963, the settlement Tahsildar granted patta in the name of the deity
represented by poojaries, Velayutham Pillai, Palaniyandiya Pillai sons
of Karuppana Pillai, Kauppana Pillai son of Kasia Pillai. Though an
appeal could be filed within a period of three months, it is seen that
no appeal was preferred therefrom and the said order of the
Settlement Tahsildar had become final. In fact, rightly, the first
respondent in the impugned order has also referred to the said
proceedings before the Settlement Tahsildar, Madurai. It is the
contention of the petitioner that the original names which are
reflected in the patta as directed by the Settlement Tahsildar are no
more and the petitioners are only their descendents and they are
entitled to have their names in the patta representing the deity.
5.Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents would submit that the first respondent has relied on a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya
Preadesh & Others Vs. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti &
another in Civil Appeal No.4850 of 2021, where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that patta cannot be mutated mentioning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 10:33:43 am )
the names of the trustees but only mentioning the name of the
temple. She would also point out that the petitioner cannot claim any
independent right and the temple's right alone have been recognized
at the time of enquiry under Act 30 of 1963, before proceeding to
issue patta under Section 8(2) of the Act.
6.I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel on either side.
7.Admittedly, the settlement Tahsildar's proceedings of the
year 1968 have become final. There is no dispute with regard to the
entitlement of the deity namely Vinayagar at Bodinayaskanpatty to
be entitled to patta. The question of representation of the deity
which was at large before the revenue authorities is now before this
Court. After conducting the necessary enquiry, the settlement
Tahsildar found that the temple has been in existence for several
years and there was no formal appointment of any trustees and the
original service doers through their descendants alone have been
rendering service regularly and have been maintaining the temple
and they are in possession of the lands by hereditary right. The
Settlement Tahsildar has also recorded the satisfaction of Iruvaran
grant made in support of the temple and deity Vinayagar, before
holding that the deity was entitled to patta under Section 8(2)(ii) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 10:33:43 am )
Act 30 of 1963, through the poojaris of the temple as noted in the
schedule. The ryotwari patta was thereafter issued as per the said
direction of the Settlement Tahsildar. However, while updating the
revenue records in the Computer patta bearing No.789, the names of
the poojaris are not mentioned.
8.The petitioner has only sought for inclusion of the names of
the descendants of the original service doers whose names were
directed to be included in the patta by the order of the Settlement
Tahsildar. The first respondent has decided the said application of
the petitioner treating it as an application for mutation of patta in the
individual names of the petitioner and others. It is only in this
regard that in the impugned order, the first respondent has
proceeded to state that the patta was issued only to Vinayagar deity
under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act and no independent claim can be
made by the trustees. However, the very application that was made
by the petitioner was only to include their names representing the
deity and not to issue patta in their individual names.
9.With regard to reference and reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pujari
Uttan Aam Kalyan Samiti reported in AIR 2021 SCC 4245, I
have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 10:33:43 am )
10.The Hon'ble Supreme Court was deciding a case where the
dispute was with regard to circulars that were challenged being not
applicable to private temples. In that connection, Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred to relevant State Rules to Act 66 of 1950, where
specific rules have been framed, where in the ownership column, the
name of the deity has been marked as the owner of the land.
Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said decision. Insofar as
the present case is concerned, there is no such prevailing rule in the
State of Tamil Nadu. The Settlement Tahsildar has found that the
forefather's of the petitioner were the persons who were maintaining
the temple and that they were in possession of the subject lands
where the temple is situate on hereditary basis.
11.In view of the above, the impugned order is clearly
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
12.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned
order is set aside. However, it is made clear that the petitioner
cannot claim independent right over the subject lands and patta can
be mutated only in the name of the temple, represented by the
poojaries, subject to the petitioner satisfying the first respondent
with regard to their entitlement by way of lawful succession by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 10:33:43 am )
producing all relevant death certificates and legal heir certificates.
On such documents being produced by the petitioner, the first
respondent shall mutate the patta including their names as persons
representing the deity of Vinayagar and issue fresh patta. The said
exercise shall be carried out within a period of twelve [12] weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
26.03.2025
Index :Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 10:33:43 am )
To
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Madurai District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Ellis Nagar,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 10:33:43 am )
P.B.BALAJI., J.
MR
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 10:33:43 am )
