Madras High Court
R.Sivakumar vs The District Registrar (Admin) on 23 January, 2025
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
W.P.No.23733 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 23.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No. 23733 of 2024
R.Sivakumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar (Admin)
District Registrar office,
Coimbatore South,
Coimbatore
2.The Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar Office,
Sulur,
Coimbatore District
3.The Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department
Rep by its Assistant Commissioner,
Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore 641 001
4.A/M. Thiruvenkadanatha
Perumalswamy Temple,
Rep. by its Executive Officer,
Sulur,
Coimbatore District.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm )
W.P.No.23733 of 2024
5.The Revenue Tahsildar
Palladam Taluk
Tiruppur District ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned refusal check slip in RFL / Sulur / 14 / 2024 dated
20.05.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent and the proceedings dated
29.03.2012 issued by the 4th respondent, quash the same and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the settlement deed
dated 20.05.2024 executed by the petitioner in favour of the petitioners
brother Thiru Senthil Ramasamy in respect of the property measuring
8.58 acres bearing s.f. No 1, Paruvai village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur
District.
For Petitioner : Mr. N.Manoharan
For Respondents : Mr. B.Vijay
1, 2 & 5 Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr. K.Karthikeyan
3&4 Government Advocate
HR & CE.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm )
W.P.No.23733 of 2024
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
“To call for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL / Sulur / 14 / 2024 dated 20.05.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent and the proceedings dated 29.03.2012 issued by the 4th respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the settlement deed dated 20.05.2024 executed by the petitioner in favour of the petitioners brother Thiru Senthil Ramasamy in respect of the property measuring 8.58 acres bearing s.f. No 1, Paruvai village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District”.
2. Challenging the refusal check slip dated 20.05.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent and the proceedings dated 29.03.2012 issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The facts set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is herein below set out.
3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm ) W.P.No.23733 of 2024
4. The petitioner would submit that the property comprised in S.F.No.1 and other lands comprised in S.No.272, Paruvai village were unenfranchised devadayam minor inam lands, granted for rendering “thutari Uzhiyam” in the pagoda of the 4th respondent temple as per TD.No.1328. The said properties vested with the Government pursuant to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The Settlement Tahsildar II had initiated suo motu proceedings and by order dated 05.05.1968 accepted the claim of the 4th respondent temple only with respect to the lands in SF.No.272 measuring 7.19 acres and not in respect of the SF.No.1.
5. The Settlement Tahsildar II, Gobichttipalayam, had accepted the claim of Palaniappan son of Cinna Pandaram with reference to SF.No.1 measuring 8.58 acres and granted ryotwari patta under Section 8 (2) (ii) read with Section 21 (3) of the Act, subject to the condition that, holder would continue to render service and he had the option either to pay 20 times the difference between fair rent in respect of the 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm ) W.P.No.23733 of 2024 land determined by the Tahsildar, Tiruppur and the land revenue due on such land and on such payment, the land would be discharged from the condition of service or he was given option to hold the lands and continue to render service subject to Sub Section 1, 2, 6 and 7 of Section 21. The option referred to in class (i) of Section 21 should be exercised within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
6. The petitioner would submit that this order has attained finality as there was no appeal filed under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The petitioner has also come to understand that the 4th respondent had quantified the amount payable under Section 20 (4) and the same has also been paid by his predecessor in title. Therefore, on payment of the said amount Palaniappan had become absolute owner.
7. The said Palaniappan along with his sons sold the subject lands to N.Nachimuthu Gounder under a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1971. Nachimuthu had mortgaged the property with the Indian 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm ) W.P.No.23733 of 2024 Oversees Bank, Sulur and later redeemed it. After his death, all his legal heirs had executed a sale deed dated 03.12.1990 in favour of one Rakkiappa Gounder. Rakkiappa had got the revenue records mutated in his name including patta.
8. The said Rakkiappa in turn sold the subject lands to the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 07.12.2001. The petitioner had been in enjoyment of the said lands since then and had also got the patta mutated in his name in patta No.801. The petitioner had thereafter decided to settle the property on his brother. To do so, he had verified the encumbrance certificate wherein he was shocked to learn that the respondents 1 and 2 had deleted the guideline value in respect of the said property and treated its value as zero. He gave a representation on 22.01.2024 with documents calling upon the respondents to restore the guideline value. He had thereafter executed a settlement deed dated 20.05.2024 in favour of his brother and presented the same for registration to the 2nd respondent. 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm ) W.P.No.23733 of 2024
9. The petitioner would submit that he has paid the required stamp duty and registration expenses. However, the 2nd respondent refused to register the same and the reason given was "HR & CE". The 4th respondent, it appears had given an objection to the 2nd respondent setting out several survey numbers, which included the subject property in respect of which they claimed a right. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
10. The 4th respondent has filed a counter through its Executive Officer contending that the petitioner has suppressed certain vital facts. The respondent would submit that the person who have been doing service to the temple were permitted to farm the lands and derive revenue from the same in lieu of salary. However, they do not have any right to sell or create encumbrance in respect of these lands.
11. The 4th respondent would admit the fact that the settlement Tahsildar had passed the order under the Act imposing conditions. The 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm ) W.P.No.23733 of 2024 4th respondent would further submit that the said Palaniappa without rendering service to the temple and without paying any amount to the temple had sold the land.
12. The 4th respondent would also submit that the Temple had filed an appeal to cancel the patta. The 4th respondent would submit that since the conditions have not been complied with, the property would belong to the Temple and possession should be surrendered to the Temple. Therefore, she sought for the dismissal of the above Writ Petition.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Settlement Tahsildar after considering the documents on the either side had clearly held that the petitioner's predecessors in title Palaniappan was entitled to patta in respect of S.No.1 and thereafter two transfers have taken place and revenue records also mutated in the name of the transferee. The petitioner has also produced the revenue records which would clearly show the continuous possession of the petitioner and his 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm ) W.P.No.23733 of 2024 predecessors in title.
14. The learned counsel would draw the attention of the Court to the Judgement of this Court in W.P.No.9798 of 2024, where the issue involved was similar to the facts of this case. The learned Single Judge went on to hold that if the amounts set out in the order of the Tahsildar has not been paid as set out therein, it could only be recovered as arrears of land revenue as per Section 8 (3) (i) of the Minor Inam Abolition Act. This Judgement had been upheld by the Division Bench in its Judgement in W.A.No.3587 of 2024.
15. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would reiterate the contentions made in the counter affidavit.
16. After hearing the counsels and perusing the records and Judgements, it is seen that the Settlement Tahsildar has granted patta to the petitioner's predecessors in title and it appears that the conditions had been complied with, since after the order of the Settlement 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm ) W.P.No.23733 of 2024 Tahsildar on 05.05.1968, there has been a sale by the said Palaniappan in favour of Nachimuthu. Nachimuthu in turn sold property to Rakkiappa on 03.12.1990 and the said Rakkiappa sold the property to the petitioner.
17. Therefore, after the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, the properties have undergone transfer thrice without any objection from the 4th respondent.
18. Therefore, the impugned refusal check slip has to necessarily be set aside. Accordingly, set aside.
19. The Writ Petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to register the document, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
23.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kan
10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm )
W.P.No.23733 of 2024
To
1.The District Registrar (Admin)
District Registrar office,
Coimbatore South,
Coimbatore
2.The Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar Office,
Sulur,
Coimbatore District
3.The Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department
Rep by its Assistant Commissioner,
Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore 641 001
4.A/M. Thiruvenkadanatha
Perumalswamy Temple,
Rep. by its Executive Officer,
Sulur,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Revenue Tahsildar
Palladam Taluk
Tiruppur District
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm )
W.P.No.23733 of 2024
P.T. ASHA, J,
kan
W.P.No. 23733 of 2024
23.01.2025
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:43:03 pm )