Madras High Court
P.Pathiah Moopar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 24 October, 2009
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24/10/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P(MD)No.10746 Of 2009 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009 P.Pathiah Moopar ..Petitioner vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Buildings, Madurai. ..Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5885/2009/A2, dated 16.09.2009 passed by the respondent herein and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to effect necesary changes in the patta in the name of the petitioner and his brothers pertaining to the land in S.No.408, wherein Chockalingam Swamy Temple is situated at Mooppapatti Village, Pothampatti Panchayat, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, within the time frame fixed by this Court. !For Petitioner ...Ms.Jessy Jeeva Priya ^For Respondents ...Mr.Pala Ramasamy Special.Govt.Pleader :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.5885/2009/A2, dated 16.09.2009, passed by the respondent herein and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to effect necesary changes in the patta in the name of the petitioner and his brothers, pertaining to the land in S.No.408, wherein, Chockalingam Swamy Temple is situated at Mooppapatti Village, Pothampatti Panchayat, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, within the time frame fixed by this Court.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner and his brothers were, originally, the trustees of Chockalingam Swamy Temple, situated in S.No.408, Mooppapatti Village, Pothampatti Panchayat, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. The temple had been constructed in the land belonging to them and it had been administered and maintained by the petitioner and his brothers. After the death of his brothers, the petitioner has been maintaining the temple by performing the poojas and other ceremonial functions in the temple.
3. It has also been stated that the temple had been in the continuous possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's ancestors, as it is a private temple, which comes within the meaning of the provisions contained in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The petitioner and his brothers had been regularly paying kists and the last payment of kists has been made on 17.08.2009, for the Fasli 1418. While so, without any valid reason, the respondent had chosen to issue a notice, dated 31.07.2008, calling the petitioner to participate in an enquiry to be held on 27.08.2009. It was learnt that the notice had been sent pursuant to the petition submitted by one Periyamookan and other villagers of Poochipatti, to cancel the patta standing in the name of the petitioner. The respondent had entertained the petition without knowing that the villagers of Poochipatti had nothing to do with the temple in question.
4. It has been further stated that the petitioner attended the hearing and submitted his explanation. However, the respondent had cancelled the patta, which was in the name of the petitioner and had issued patta in the name of Chockalingam Swamy Temple, even though, the respondent is not a competent authority to do so, in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents and had submitted that against the impugned order passed by the respondent, a statutory remedy of revision is available, under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. Without availing the said remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the learned counsel had submitted that the persons who were parties before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, had not been impleaded as respondents in the present Writ Petition.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted, in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, by way of a revision to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983. Further, the petitioner is not in a position to show that the respondent had passed the impugned order, without having jurisidction to do so. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is not maintainable in law and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that, it is open to the petitioner to prefer a revision to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, against the impugned order, dated 16.09.2009, passed by the respondent, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act,1983. On such revision being filed, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, is to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the other parties concerned, after receiving the report from the Tahsildar, Usilampattai, in respect of the subject matter of the revision petition. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.
vsn To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate Buildings, Madurai.