Disposed

The Executive Officer v. M/S. Raju Spinning Mills

Madras HC9 Mar 2021WA(MD)/106/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Purchasers of service inam lands challenged the temple’s revenue patta and an encroachment notice. The court upheld both, holding that the patta implemented final ryotwari proceedings and required no fresh notice to the purchaser. It allowed the temple’s appeals, set aside the single judge’s order and dismissed the connected purchasers’ writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The single judge’s common order was set aside; the temple’s revenue patta and Section 78(2) show-cause notice were sustained.

The Executive Officer Vs M/S. Raju Spinning Mills — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: .03.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010 and M.P(MD)No.2 & 3 of 2010

¶4

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011:

¶5

The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Vaithiyanathaswamy Temple, Madavarvalagam, Srivillipuhur, Virudhunagar District. ... 2^nd Respondent/Appellant in both W.As Vs. 1.M/s.Raju Spinning Mills P. Ltd., By its Director, having Office at No.148/1, Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village, Vaithilingapuram Post, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ...1^st Respondent in both W.A.s

¶6

2.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. ...2^nd Respondent in W.A.(MD)106 of 2011 3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Sivagangai. ...2^nd respondent in W.A(MS) 107 of 2011

¶7

Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 24.02.2010 passed in W.P.Nos.23436 of 2002 and 5640 2008 respectively.

¶8

Prayer in WP 23436 of 2002:

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in NEE.Mu.No.B3/318/2000 dated 18.03.2002 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is Concerned.

¶10

Prayer in WP(MD). 5640/ 2008 :

¶11

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of

¶12

1/14

¶13

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶14

Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. 1987/2008/a3 dated 19/03/2008 and qussh the same.

¶15

(In both W.As) For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam For R-1 : Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Sivaji For R-2 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, Special Government Pleader

¶16

W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010:

¶17

1.S.M.M.Vadivelu Represented by Power Agent, M.K.Subramaniam 2.P.V.Ramasubramania Raja 3.Gurusamy Naidu, Represented by Power Agent, M.K.Subramaniam ... Petitioners

¶18

vs. 1.The Tahsildar, Srvilliputtur, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vaithiyanathasamy Temple, Madavarvalagam, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District.

¶19

3.Ochammal ... Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in Nee.Mu.No.B3/318/2000 dated 18.03.2002 and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Masilamani Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Sivaji For R-1 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, Special Government Pleader For R-2 : Mr.H.Arumugam, For R-3 : No Appearance

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2/14

¶24

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶25

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶26

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

¶27

Since the issue raised in the writ appeals and the writ petition are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by means of this common order.

¶28

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 are filed challenging the common order dated 24.02.2010 passed in W.P.No.23436 of 2002 and W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008 respectively.

¶29

W.P(MD)No.3475 of 2010, is filed challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, Srivilliputtur Taluk, Virudhunagar District in Nee.Mu.No.B3/318/2000 dated 18.03.2002 and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶30

In the above writ appeals, Arulmighu Vaithiyanathaswamy Temple, Madavarvalagam, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, is the appellant.

¶31

5.The dispute revolves around the land situated in Survey Nos.148/1, 2, 3 and 4 of Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village of Srivillipuhur Taluk. The said lands to an extent of 7.69 acres, is said to have been purchased by the first respondent/writ petitioner Raju Spinning Mills Private Limited from different owners on various dates.

¶32

The writ petitioner claims that they had purchased the above mentioned properties for valid consideration from various vendors. After the purchase, the writ petitioner Mill attempted to get their name entered into revenue records. Prior to the same, the properties were standing in the name of the writ petitioner's predecessor in title. The petitioner claimed that they are the bonafide purchaser for value as the property had no encumbrance. It is also stated that the writ petitioner had put up a building and installed machineries for the purpose of running a Spinning Mill by borrowing loan from financial Institutions and also subjecting the property as security. While so, according to the writ petitioner Mill, the appellant temple had taken steps to transfer the patta and patta was issued in the name of the appellant temple vide proceedings in Nee.Mu.No.B3/318/20000 dated 18.03.2002, which was challenged by the writ petitioner Spinning Mill in W.P.No.23436 of 2002.

¶33

The writ petition was resisted by the temple on various grounds. It is the specific case of the temple that all the lands in Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village, Srivilliputhur Taluk are Minor Inam lands and these lands were granted to Sthalasthars, who were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

3/14

¶35

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶36

rendering service to the temple. Title Deed No.503 was also executed by the Inam Commissioner in recognition of the grant of inam to Sthalasthars.

¶37

It is an admitted fact that the lands were Minor Inam lands granted to the Sthalasthars on condition of rendering service to the temple. The service holder shall continue to render service to the temple. So long as the service holder renders service, he shall be entitled to occupy the lands in respect of which he is entitled to a patta under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). While the facts remain so, in the year 1942-1943, these service inamdars said to have alienated the property by executing sale deeds in favour of various persons. One such person is one Periyasamy Nadar, who had sold the property to the first respondent/writ petitioner Mill. As the original service inamdars had sold the property, the District Collector, Sivakasi, ordered resumption of the lands that were sold irrespective of the 'Melwaram' and 'Kudiwaram' vide proceedings in ROC E.4533/32 and ROC E.7794/52 in respect of Title Deed No.503. Challenging the said resumption order, the alienees had filed suits in O.S.Nos.3, 5, to 10, 12 to 20 and 22 of 1954 before the District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, for declaration that the grant was only for a 'Melwaram'. All the said suits were dismissed holding that both warams were granted in Inam Lands and that the District Collector had the right of resumption on account of the alienation made by the inamdars.

¶38

Against the said judgments dated 25.04.1955, A.S.Nos.110 to 114, 116 and 134 of 1955 before the Sub-Court, Ramnad, were filed. The temple also filed A.S.No.115 of 1955. All the appeals ended in dismissal on 25.08.1956. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the appellate Court, S.A.Nos.126 to 129, 131 to 133 of 1957 were filed and they were also dismissed on 15.08.1960. In the interregnum, the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963/Act 30 of 1963, came into force. The judgment passed in the second appeals were again put to challenge in L.P.A.Nos.21 to 26 of 1961, which were also dismissed. Thus, the order of resumption was confirmed.

¶39

After advent of the Act 30 of 1963, the temple had applied for Ryotwari patta, which was originally granted and later it was remanded by the Inam Abolition Tahsildhar to the Court of Settlement Tahsildhar, Kovilpatti in R.A.No.623/1969 vide order dated 16.12.1970 for fresh enquiry and disposal according to law for issuance of Ryotwari patta in respect of the lands situate in Padikkasuvaithanpatti village. The temple was the petitioner and there were about 219 respondents, who were represented through counsel, had made their submissions, wherein the 32^nd respondent was the Periyasamy Nadar from whose heirs, the writ petitioner Spinning https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mill had purchased the properties. Before the Settlement Tahsildhar,

¶40

4/14

¶41

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶42

the alienees from the service holders had claimed patta in their favour on the ground that all the lands are in their possession and the temple had not claimed any service from the land owners for the temple for the last 100 years and there was no service alleged to have been rendered to the temple. As the lands are in their uninterrupted possession and enjoyment for more than 100 years and the temple now claimed the right over the lands, they prayed that patta should be issued in their favour and all the respondents in the said proceedings had also filed their registered sale deeds in support of their claim. The Settlement Tahsildhar also decided whether the grant is a service tenure lands with both warams or a personal inam burdened with service or with Melwaram only and also who were entitled for Ryotwari patta. The fair Inam Register extract was perused, which had showed that it was a service inam with both warams. Most of the respondents were the alienees from the heirs of the service holders.

¶43

After considering the evidence on record, the Settlement Tahsildhar decided that Devasthanam and the service holders are entitled for Ryotwari patta for the lands claimed by them under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Tahsildhar, a Revenue Appeal was preferred in R.A.No.103 of 1974 before the Special Tribunal Inam Abolition, Ramnad at Sivagangai. However, after the orders were passed by the Tahsildhar and before the revenue appeals could be filed, the said Periyasamy Nadar, who is the predecessor in title of the writ petitioner died on 13.12.1971 leaving behind his legal heirs namely his wife and sons. In the revenue appeal, one Mariammal W/o. Periyasamy Nadar was the seventh appellant.

¶44

The Special Tribunal, Ramnad, dismissed the appeal on 28.08.1975. Thereafter, there was no further appeal and the predecessor in title of the writ petitioner had allowed the said order to become final. The said Periyasamy Nadar's son had executed a gift deed in favour of his daughter Theriyammal on 03.02.1994. The writ petitioner, who is the first respondent had purchased nearly 7.69 acres of land in Survey Nos.148/1, 2, 3 and 4 of Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village of Srivillipuhur Taluk, from the legal heirs of Periyasami Nadar under three sale deeds dated 10.08.1994, 10.08.1994 and 16.05.1996.

¶45

Thus, the temple was granted Ryotwari patta as early as in the year 1969, which was confirmed by the Special Tribunal Inam Abolition in the year 1975. Based on the Ryotwari patta, the temple had applied for a revenue patta before the Tahsildhar, Srivilliputhur, who is the second respondent. The second respondent also had issued patta in favour of the temple on 18.03.2002 subject to the condition that if any civil suit filed and final decision is granted, the temple would abide by the same. As the said patta was issued in favour of the appellant without notice or affording any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opportunity to the first respondent Spinning Mills,

¶46

5/14

¶47

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶48

W.P.No.23436 of 2002 was filed. The same was allowed by this Court on 01.07.2002. However, the same was allowed without notice to the temple. Therefore, the temple had preferred W.A.No.3928 of 2002 challenging the order dated 01.07.2002, which was allowed and remanded to the learned Single Judge. In this connection, it is also relevant to point out that in respect of the land covered in T.D.No.503, the temple had filed a suit in O.S.No.416 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur, which was dismissed and an appeal in A.S.No.97 of 2005 filed before the SubCourt, Srivilliputhur also met with the same fate. It is stated that S.A(MD)No.855 of 2008 is filed by the temple and the same is said to be pending before this Court.

¶49

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mentioned that the subject matter in O.S.No.416 of 1998 is not connected with the writ petitioner Spinning Mills and they are also not a party to the above proceedings.

¶50

Be that as it may, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, had issued a notice under Section 78(2) of HR & CE Act on 19.03.2008 to the writ petitioner calling upon to show cause as to why it should not be removed from the property alleging it to be the encroacher. The said notice dated 19.03.2008 is challenged in W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008.

¶51

The learned Single Judge had passed a common order in both the writ petitions W.P.No.23436 of 2002 and W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008 allowing the writ petitions on 24.02.2010 on the ground that the second appeal is still pending and without issuing notice to the writ petitioner, patta ought not to have been issued in favour of the temple before determining the title of the temple and issuance of notice under Section 78(2) of HR & CE Act, was also premature and allowed both the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the above common order, the temple had preferred W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 respectively.

¶52

Insofar as W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010 is concerned, the subsequent purchasers from the service holders, have filed the writ petition, challenging the order dated 18.02.2202 issuing patta in favour of the temple.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶54

In the light of the facts stated supra, the following question arises for determination:

¶55

“whether the first respondent/writ petitioner is entitled for a notice from the Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur for grant of patta in favour of the appellant/temple?”

¶56

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶57

6/14

¶58

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶59

According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, their predecessor in title, namely, Periyasamy Nadar passed away on 13.12.1971 and all the legal heirs were brought on record in the proceedings before the Settlement Tahsildar. The Settlement Tahsildar had issued the ryotwari patta in favour of the temple on 26.02.1974 and the temple had applied for revenue patta only in the year 2002.

¶60

21.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.Masilamani submitted that the order granting patta to temple was violative of principles of natural justice since notice to the persons in possession was not given. In this regard, it has to be seen that ryotwari patta was granted to the temple and the issuance of revenue patta is only implementation of the same and no notice is necessary. To substantiate the said argument, Mr.H.Arumagam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed his reliance on the decision in Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others reported in 2015 (8) SCC 519 and the relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

¶61

“28.It is on the aforesaid jurisprudential premise that the fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, have developed. It is for this reason that the courts have consistently insisted that such procedural fairness has to be adhered to before a decision is made and infraction thereof has led to the quashing of decisions taken. In many statutes, provisions are made ensuring that a notice is given to a person against whom an order is likely to be passed before a decision is made, but there may be instances where though an authority is vested with the powers to pass such orders, which affect the liberty or property of an individual but the statute may not contain a provision for prior hearing. But what is important to be noted is that the applicability of principles of natural justice is not dependent upon any statutory provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision or not.

¶62

35. From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that the opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic requirement in the Court proceeding. Later on, this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessary. It was, thus, observed in A.K. Kraipak's case

¶63

7/14

¶64

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶65

(supra) that if the purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how these rules should not be made available to administrative inquiries. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India also the application of principle of natural justice was extended to the administrative action of the State and its authorities. It is, thus, clear that before taking an action, service of notice and giving of hearing to the noticee is required. In Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills, this aspect was explained in the following manner:(SCC p.568, para 3)

¶66

“3. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that principles of natural justice were satisfied before taking action under Section 29, assuming that it was necessary to do so. Let it be seen whether it was so. It is well settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a straight-jacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case to case and from one fact-situation to another. All that has to be seen is that no adverse civil consequences are allowed to ensue before one is put on notice that the consequence would follow if he would not take care of the lapse, because of which the action as made known is contemplated. No particular form of notice is the demand of law. All will depend on facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶67

39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straight-jacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason – perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling – it is felt that a fair hearing 'would make no difference' – meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker–then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. Such an approach was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in Malloch v. Aberdeen

¶68

8/14

¶69

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶70

Corporation, who said that:(WLR p.1595:All ER p.1294)

¶71

“....A 'breach of procedure...cannot give (rise to) a remedy in the courts, unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The court does not act in vain'.

¶72

Relying on these comments, Brandon LJ opined in Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority that: (W.L.R p. 593:All ER p.377)

¶73

“...no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing”.

¶74

In such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since the 'right' result can be secured without according such treatment to the individual.

¶75

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner urges that as the delay on the part of the appellant/temple in getting the revenue patta after 28 years, would disentitle them from claiming any right as the same would go to show that the appellant did not have any right, interest or title over the property in question.

¶76

The same cannot be accepted as the original service inamdars had sold the property in favour of the first respondent's vendor including both warams. Because of which, the District Collector had resumed the lands in proceedings in R.O.C.E.4533/32 and R.O.C.E.7794/52 in respect of the title deed T.D.503. The said resumption order was challenged by the first respondent's vendor along with alienees. The suits were dismissed holding that the District Collector had the right of resumption on account of alienation made by the inamdars. Further, the appeals in appeal suits, second appeals and Letters Patent Appeals were also dismissed confirming the order of resumption.

¶77

As per Section 3(c) of the Act, all rights and interests created by the inamdar in or over his inam before the appointed day, shall as against the Government, cease and determine. Section 3(e), (f) and (g) of the Act, are as follows:

¶78

“3(e).the inamdar and any other person whose rights stand transferred under clause (b) or cease and determine under clause (c) shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on him by or under this Act;

¶79

(f) the rights and obligations of the inamdar

¶80

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶81

9/14

¶82

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶83

as such shall be extinguished;

¶84

(g) any rights and privileges which may have accrued in the minor inam to any person before the appointed day against the inamdar shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable against the Government or against the inamdar, and every such person shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on him, by or under this Act.”

¶85

A reading of the above provisions also makes it clear that the order of resumption by the Government of the lands from the inamdars in view of the reason that they have alienated the property, has become final at the instance of the alienees. Even presuming that the first respondent continued to be in possession even after the resumption order was passed, it is not stated as to why the first respondent had not applied for the ryotwari patta to sustain their title and possession. Therefore, the first respondent, is the person who does not have any right or title over the property, cannot have any locus to challenge the issuance of the revenue patta in favour of the appellant temple. In the impugned patta in Nee.Mu.No.B3/318/2000 dated 18.03.2002, undertaking of the appellant temple is recorded as follows:,

¶86

“4. nkYk; mUs;kpF itj;jpaehj Rthkp jpUf;nfhtpy; bray; mYtyh; 11.01.2002-k; ehsd;W ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; bfhLj;Js ;s cWjpnaw;g [ cWjpbkhHpapy; ghh;it 3-y; fz;l nfhtpy;gl ;o brl;oy ;bkz;l ; jhrpy;jhh; mth;fspd; cj;jutpd;go jpUtpy;ypg[j ;Jh ; tl;lk ;, gof;fhR itj;jhd;gl ;o fpuhkj;jpy; nkw;go Myak; bgaUf;F uaj;Jthhp gl;lh tHq;fg ;gl ;l epyq;fSf;F epyt[lik gjpt[ nkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;lj ;jpy; gy;ntW egh;fs ; gl;lh bgw;Ws ;shh;fs ;. mjd; tpguk; nfhtpy; eph;thfj;jpw ;F jw;nghJ bjhpa te;Js;sbjdt[k,; mjd; mog;gilapy; kPz;Lk ; Myaj;jpd; bgahpnyna gjpt [ khw;wk ; bra;jpl jw;nghJ tpz;zg ;gk ; tl;lhl;rpaUf;F bra;jpUg;gjhft[k ;, mt;thW kPz;Lk ; Myaj;jpd; bgahpy; ,j;Jld; ,izf;fg ;gl ;Ls ;s gl;oaypy; fz;Ls ;s epyq;fSf;F gjpt[ khw;wk ; Vw;gLj;Jtjd; fhuzkhf epy clik gjpt [ nkk;ghl;Lj ;jpl;lj ;jpy; gl;lh bgw;wth;fs ; VnjDk; tHf;Ffs; chpa ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bjhlh;e ;J mjd; mog;gilapy; xU ,Wjpahd jPh;g ;g [ Vw;gl ;lhy; mjw;F nkw;go Myak; rhh;ghf fl; ;Lg ;gLtjhft[k ;, nkw;go , Wjpahd jPh;g ;g [ vd;gJ nky;KiwaPLfs; Koe;j gpd; filrpapy; tUk; jPh;g ;g [ vd bghUs; bfhs;syhk; vdt[k ; cWjpnaw;g [k ; bra;Js ;shh; .”

¶87

A reading of the above shows that the undertaking is with respect to any challenge by any person, who had obtained ryotwari patta pursuant to the Act, the temple would be bound by the same. It is not the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that they had applied for ryotwari patta under the Act and that now the revenue patta is issued to the appellant without considering the same. Besides, the suit that is referred to in O.S.No.416 of 1998, which is now pending before this Court in S.A(MD)No.855 of 2008, is with respect to the properties situate in S.Nos.38/1B1, 1B2, 1B3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶88

10/14

¶89

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶90

and 1B4, whereas the claim of the first respondent Mill is with respect to the lands situate in Survey No.148/1, 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, the said suit has got no relevance to the facts of the present case and admittedly, there are no other suit pending in this regard.

¶91

When admittedly all the lands are only service inam lands granted to the temple for rendering service and they are inalienable, the first respondent cannot have any right to purchase the same from the predecessor in title of the inam land. Section 21 of the Act provides for service inams and how they should be dealt with. The above Section very clearly states that no service holder can sell the property as it is intended only for the service to a religious, educational or charitable institution. The continuance of the said service is the object for which reason, the service holders also include their heirs. Therefore, any failure to render service as prescribed, shall disentitle the service holder and the Institution shall at liberty to make such arrangement as it thinks fit for the performance of the service.

¶92

28). The first respondent Mill has no locus to challenge the issuance of revenue patta as the same is pursuant to the ryotwari patta issued which has become final. The said proceedings is not the subject matter in the writ petition and the legality of the same cannot be canvassed here as it has become final. In this regard, it would be relevant to advert to the decision in M.Meenakshi and Others v. Metadin Agarwal(Dead) by Lrs. and others reported in 2006 (7) SCC 470 and the relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

¶93

“ 17. The competent authority under the 1976 Act was not impleaded as a party in the suit. The orders passed by the competent authority therein could not have been the subject-matter thereof. The Plaintiff although being a person aggrieved could have questioned the validity of the said orders, did not chose to do so. Even if the orders passed by the competent authorities were bad in law, they were required to be set aside in an appropriate proceeding. They were not the subject matter of the said suit and the validity or otherwise of the said proceeding could not have been gone into therein and in any event for the first time in the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶94

18. It is a well-settled principle of law that even a void order is required to be set aside by a competent court of law inasmuch as an order may be void in respect of one person but may be valid in respect of another. A void order is necessarily not non est. An order cannot be declared to be void in a collateral proceeding and

¶95

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶96

11/14

¶97

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶98

that too in absence of the authorities who were the authors thereof. The orders passed by the authorities were not found to be wholly without jurisdiction. They were not, thus, nullities.”

¶99

It is also pertinent to note that the order dated 18.03.2002 registering the name of the appellant is only an implementation of the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildhar, Kovilpatti, which was confirmed by the Special Tribunal for Inam Abolition, Ramnad at Sivagangai under Act 30 of 1963. The first respondent Mills, who is only a purchaser from an alienee of a service inamdar, cannot raise any objection for the same. Any development made in the property by the first respondent without any right or title is at his own risk and the same will not be binding on the appellant temple.

¶100

The argument that the order dated 26.02.1974, is non est in law and will not bind the respondent mill, is only to be rejected as the said order of the Settlement Tahsildar was confirmed in appeal filed by the first respondent's vendor before the Special Tribunal for Inam Abolition. Admittedly, excepting the writ petitions filed before this Court, the first respondent has not taken any independent legal proceedings to get their title confirmed before any legal forum, which would itslef indicate that they have been squatting over the property without any right or title to the same.

¶101

In the light of the above discussion, the patta granted in favour of the appellant on 18.03.2002, cannot be disturbed by the first respondent on the question of violation of principles of natural justice as it is only a continuance and confirmation of the ryotwari patta granted earlier in which the first respondent's vendor was a party.

¶102

Insofar as W.A(MD)No.107 of 2011 is concerned, it is directed against the order made in W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008, the appellant in the capacity of a owner of the property had issued the notice under Section 78(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1959. However, the Joint Commissioner found that there is a prima facie case of encroachment. Therefore, he had issued the notice upon the first respondent Mill calling upon him to show-cause as to why the encroachment cannot be removed. The said notice is only a show-cause notice issued to the first respondent to vacate the premises but without giving its objection if any to the same, the Mill has rushed to this Court challenging the same. As the right and title of the temple is already decided in W.P.No.23436 of 2002, the first respondent has to follow the procedure in the manner known to law and cannot challenge the show-cause notice.

¶103

Finding of the learned Single Judge that the temple has already filed O.S.No.416 of 1998 against the first respondent for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶104

12/14

¶105

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶106

recovery of possession and the same is dismissed and the second appeal is pending and therefore, the notice issued by the temple under Section 78(2) of the Act is not maintainable, cannot stand as already held supra, the subject matter in S.A(MD)No.855 of 2008 is not the one for which the first respondent is claiming title. Therefore, the first respondent has no right or title to the property. The possession of the temple land is only that of an encroacher and the notice issued under Section 78(2) of the Act is sustainable.

¶107

In view of the above findings, the common order dated 24.02.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23436 of 2002 and W.P(MD)No.5640 of 2008, is set aside and the writ appeals are allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶108

Insofar as W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010 is concerned, the same is filed by the petitioners challenging the patta given to the appellant temple. Hence, in view of the above findings, recording the same, this writ petition is also dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶109

Note :

¶110

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶111

¶112

1.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶113

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Vaithiyanathaswamy Temple, Madavarvalagam, Srivillipuhur, Virudhunagar District.

¶114

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶115

13/14

¶116

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010

¶117

3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Sivagangai.

¶118

+1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-9918[F] dated 10/03/2021 ) +3 CC to M/s.A.SIVAJI, Advocate ( SR-10033[F] dated 10/03/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10214[F] dated 10/03/2021 )

¶119

W.A(MD)Nos.106 and 107 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.3975 of 2010 09.03.2021

¶120

SVN(CO)

¶121

KB(28.04.2021) 14P 9C

¶122

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶123

14/14