Madras High Court
P.Murali Krishnan vs The Secretary To Government on 9 August, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2023:MHC:3648
WP No.11335 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09-08-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.11335 of 2023
And
WMP Nos.11232, 11233, 11234 and 11237 of 2023
1.P.Murali Krishnan
2.P.Hari Krishnan
3.P.Venugopal ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary and
Commissioner for Land Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.11335 of 2023
4.The District Collector,
GST Road,
Chengalpattu District-603 001.
5.The District Revenue Officer,
VOC Nagar,
Chengalpattu-603 001.
6.The Sub Collector,
Madurantakam,
Chengalpattu District.
7.The Tahsildar,
GST Road,
Madurantakam,
Chengalpattu District.
8.The Assistant Commissioner,
HR&CE,
Chengalpattu District.
9.Sri Kodanda Rama Swami Temple,
No.12, Nelli Main Road,
Palli Agaram,
Madurantakam Taluk,
Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
fifth respondent by his proceeding in Na.Ka.6871/2019/A4 dated
30.06.2022 and subsequent to the proceedings of the second respondent in
R2/2911107/2022 dated 20.10.2022 and quash the same and consequently
direct the fifth respondent to rectify the UDR patta and issue patta in the
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.11335 of 2023
name of the petitioners with respect to the lands comprised in SF No.18/1,
18/2 and 21 to an extent of 21.73 acres situated at Palliyakaram Village,
Madurantakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
For Petitioners : Mr.E.Manoharan for
Mr.E.Balamurugan
For Respondents-1,2 and
4 to 7 : Mr.E.Sundaram,
Government Advocate.
For Respondents-3 and 8: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan,
Special Government Pleader
(HR&CE)
For Respondent-9 : Mr.M.Elumalai
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu in proceedings dated 13.06.2022, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of patta in respect of the subject property described in the present writ petition.
Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.11335 of 2023
2. The writ petitioners state that they are owning several places of land at Pilli Agaram Village, Madurantagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District. They inherited the property from their forefathers and are in possession and enjoyment of the same.
3. A suit in OS No.78 of 1916 has been instituted before the Principal District Munsif Court at Chengalpattu District by Raghavalu Naidu, Duraisamy Naidu, Thulasi Naidu, Venkatachalapathy Naidu and Ramachandra Naidu as plaintiffs against Kesavalu Naidu, Ramasamy Naidu, Duraisamy Naidu, Appakutty Naidu, Rangabhasyam Naidu, Thiruvenkatasamy Naidu, Lakshmana Naidu, Abbayi Naidu @Narayanasami Naidu, Lelengalraya Naidu as defendants, seeking for the relief of partition.
4. The partition suit ended with the compromise decree dated 07.01.1918. The compromise decree specifically states that a portion of the properties are endowed for the benefits of the Vellore Subramanya Swamy for conducting Utsavam in favour of Palliyagaram Kothandaramaswamy Temple for celebrating Thirukalyana Utsavam. The relevant portion of the Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.11335 of 2023 decree reads as under:-
“gpuhjpy; fz;l C bc&l;a{ypy; fz;l epy';fis thjpfns milantz;oaJ vd;Wk;. D bc&l;a{ypy; fz;l epy';fis
1. 2 gpujpthjpfns milantz;oaJ vd;Wk;. B bc&l;a{ypy; fz;l e";ir epy';fis 4 ghfkhf gpuptpid bra;J mjpy; 2 ghfj;ij xU gf;fkhf thjpfSk;. xU ghfj;ij 1k;
gpujpthjpa[k; kw;bwhU ghfj;ij 2k;
gpujpthjpa[k; mila ntz;oaJ vd;Wk;.
F bc&l;a{y; epy';fspy;
tUk;goapypUe;J ?????? ntY}u;
Rg;gpukzpa Rthkpapd; 5k; cj;rtj;ij
elj;jpf;bfhs;sntz;oabjd;Wk;. B
bc&l;a{y; g["i
; r epy';fspd;
tUk;goapypUe;J gs;spafuk;
nfhjz;luhkRthkp jpUf;fy;ahz
cw;rtj;ij elj;jp tuntz;oaJ vd;Wk;.
1k; gpujpthjp FoapUf;Fk; fPHz;il
tPli
; l mokida[k; cl;gl 1k;
gpujpthjpna
mDgtpj;Jf;bfhs;ssntz;oaJ vd;Wk;.
1k; gpujpthjp nfrtY eha[L mDgtpj;J tUfpw fPHz;il 2 fl;LtPLk; mijr;
Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.11335 of 2023 nru;e;j mo kida[k; eP'f ; yhf kw;w kPjp A bc&l;a{y; 1tJ mapl;l brhj;Jf;fisa[k; tPli ; la[k; 2. 3. 4. 6 mapl;lk; ,e;j brhj;Jf;fisa[k; 4 rkghfkhf gpupj;J 2 ghfj;ij xU gf;fkhf thjpfSk; kPjp xU ghfj;jij 1k; gpujpthjpa[k; kw;bwhU ghfj;ij 2k; gpujpthjpa[k; milantz;oaJ vd;Wk; A bc&l;a{ypy; 5tJ mapl;lk; tpc&akhf thjpfs; bra;jpUf;Fk; jhthit withdraw bra;Jbfhz;L nfhu;ll ; hu;
mDkjpapd;ngupy; ntW jhth
bra;Jbfhs;sntz;Lk; vd;Wk;. 7k;
gpujpthjp A bc&l;a{y; 1tJ mapl;lk;
nkyz;il tPli
; lg;gw;wp claim bra;a[k;
ml;tu;!; bghrc&d; (adverse possession)
ghj;jpaijia tpl;Ltpl ntz;oaJ
vd;Wk; mths; mths; bryit mths;
mthshf milantz;oaJ vd;Wk;
jPu;g;g[bra;ag;gl;lJ/ And it is further ordered
that permission is granted for fresh such being filed as regards item 5 of A Schedule.”
5. The petitioners filed an application seeking patta in respect of the entire property, wherein a portion of the property has been endowed in Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.11335 of 2023 favour of two temple. Since the Authorities have not granted the relief to the petitioners, the petitioners earlier filed WP No.9808 of 2018 and this Court passed final orders on 24.09.2018, directed the parties to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law and settle the issues.
6. The petitioners filed WA No.1145 of 2020 and the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 23.12.2020, directing the District Revenue Officer to conduct an inquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned.
7. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District conducted an enquiry and passed an order, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The order of the District Revenue Officer also reveals that endowment was created in respect of the subject property. Patta was already granted in the name of Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple and entries made in the Revenue Register are recorded in the order impugned. Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.11335 of 2023
8. The findings of the District Revenue Officer reveal that the Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department also in the Report stated that a portion of the property in Palli Agaram Gramam in Survey Nos.18 and 21 are belonging to Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners, though disputed the fact that it is not an endowment, the compromise decree passed in OS No.707 of 1915 reveals that there is an endowment in favour of two temples, including Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple. Endowment was created for the purpose of conducting festivals in the said temple and therefore, the Deity of the temple secured the right in respect of the property. In such circumstances, the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of patta cannot be considered by this Court in writ proceedings.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will approach the Competent Authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, more specifically, under Section 63 of the Act.
Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.11335 of 2023
11. The order impugned passed by the District Revenue Officer is also an appealable order. Under these circumstances, it is for the petitioners to take decision either to approach the Competent Authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 or prefer an appeal before the Commissioner for Land Administration.
12. However, the Revenue Authorities are incompetent to decide the title, ownership or otherwise under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. If at all the petitioners have to affirm their title in respect of the subject properties, they have to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law necessarily.
13. As far as the order impugned is concerned, the District Revenue Officer considered the report of the Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, who in turn has stated that the properties are belonging to Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple. The compromise decree, passed in the civil suit, also reveals that the property was endowed in favour of the temple.
Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.11335 of 2023
14. That being the factum, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order impugned passed by the District Revenue Officer. It is for the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law.
15. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
09-08-2023 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No Svn To Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.11335 of 2023
1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner for Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.
4.The District Collector, GST Road, Chengalpattu District-603 001.
5.The District Revenue Officer, VOC Nagar, Chengalpattu-603 001.
6.The Sub Collector, Madurantakam, Chengalpattu District.
7.The Tahsildar, GST Road, Madurantakam, Chengalpattu District.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Page 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.11335 of 2023 Svn
8.The Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, Chengalpattu District.
WP 11335 of 2023 09-08-2023 Page 12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis