The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a revenue order and declaration of land title in favor of a Temple. The Court held that title disputes requiring complex evidence must be decided by the Civil Court, not revenue authorities or writ courts.
The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :05.10.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No. 16761 of 2013 and MP.No.1 of 2013
S.KANNAN
Vs
1.The Commissioner Survey and Settlement O/o.The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Executive Officer, Sri Alaghiya Manavala Temple, Sivagangai. (R2-suo motu impleaded as per order dt. 11.09.2018) .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus calling for the entire records of the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.ka.No.I1/5772/12 dated 22.10.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to cancel the Patta standing in the name of the Alaghiya Manavala Temple and issue Patta in the name of the petitioner with regard to land in survey Nos.138/2 & 138/3 situated in Sudiyur Village Paramagudi Taluk, Ramnad District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate for R1
Mr.M.Maharaja Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) for R2
O R D E R
The order of the Commissioner, Survey and Settlement dated 22.10.2013 is under challenge in this writ petition. Admittedly, the Patta stands in the name of Sri Alaghiya Manavala Temple at Sivaganga. Even in the prayer stated in the writ petition, the writ petitioner states that the Patta is now standing in the name of Sri Alaghiya Manavala Temple. Instead of that, the writ petitioner claims Patta based on the fact that the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the writ petitioner 40 years back, more specifically, during the year 1970. All these factual aspects raised by the writ petitioner had been considered by the Commissioner, Survey and Settlement in his order dated 22.10.2012.
Internet:Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order
To
The Commissioner Survey and Settlement O/o.The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
W.P.No.16761 of 2013
05.10.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Patta holding in the name of the Temple concerning title and ownership disputes.
Whether complex facts of title, ownership, and possession can be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Kannan
The Commissioner Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai-5
The Executive Officer, Sri Alaghiya Manavala Temple, Sivagangai
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
