Allowed

Alayamani Udayar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC20 Dec 2021WP/16704/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, Writ petition challenged the classification of privately owned properties as 'Government Lands-Hindu Temple Lands' in the Guideline Value Register, nullifying a registered gift deed, and sought a direction to rectify the register based on a prior revenue proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 4 and 5 directed to conduct an enquiry, hear parties, and rectify the Guideline Value Register within twelve weeks.

Alayamani Udayar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.No.16704 of 2021 and W.M.P Nos.17683 & 17684 of 2021

¶6

Alayamani Udayar 2. Kalavathi 3. Kannappan Udayar 4. Ganamani Udayar ... Petitioners Vs 1) The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Revenue department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2) The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungabakkam, Chennai-600 034. 3) The District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 4) The Additional Collector (Revenue) Villupuram, Villupuram District. 5) The District Registrar, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 6) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District. 7) The Tahsildar, Vannur, Villupuram District.

¶7

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

¶8

The Sub Registrar, Vannur, Villupuram District.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner,

¶10

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Villupuram,

¶11

Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to rectify the Guideline Value Register in accordance with the proceedings of the 7^th respondent in Na.Ka.A2/557/2021 dated 25/03/2021.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Selvaraj for

¶14

Mr.D.Jayasingh

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekar,

¶16

Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) for R2 & R9 Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate (for R1, R3, R4, R6 and R7)

¶17

Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Government Pleader (for R5 & R8)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to rectify the Guideline Value Register in accordance with the proceedings of the 7^th respondent in Na.Ka.A2/557/2021 dated 25/03/2021.

¶20

The petitioner owned the land in respect of 20 items of the properties dealt with in the proceedings of the seventh respondent, dated 25.03.2021 in Na.Ka.Aa2/557/2021, in which Serial Nos.1 and 2 are owned by the first petitioner and Serial Nos. 7 to 19 belonged to the second petitioner and the remaining 5 items belonged to the petitioners 1, 3 and 4. In the Guideline Value Register maintained in the Office of the eighth respondent, all the properties are shown as “agricultural lands”, as per the Revised Guideline Value, dated 09.03.2007. Again, on 13.12.2011, the Guideline Value had been revised as per the Revised Guideline Value Register and the value of the lands is show as 'zero', describing the classification of the land as “Government Lands-Hindu Temple Lands”. Immediately, after coming to know of the same, the petitioner represented the

¶21

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

¶22

authorities concerned to rectify the Guideline Register as per the report submitted by the seventh respondent.

¶23

While that being so, on 02.07.2021, the second petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of the first petitioner in respect of the subject properties and presented the same for registration. It was returned by the eighth respondent for the reason that No Objection Certificate from the second respondent should be presented by the petitioner, in view of the Guideline Value Registrar, wherein the property has been shown as Government Lands-Temple Lands.

¶24

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the

¶25

case, the respondents 4 and 5 are directed to conduct enquiry in this regard, in view of the order passed by the seventh respondent dated 25.03.2021 in Na.Ka.A2/557/2021 and after conducting enquiry between the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 9 herein and after giving an opportunity of hearing to them, pass orders to rectify the Guideline Value Register on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

¶33

1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,

Revenue department,

Fort St. George,

Chennai-600 009.

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Nungabakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶38

1. The District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶39

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

¶40

4)	The Additional Collector (Revenue) Villupuram, Villupuram District.
5)	The District Registrar, Villupuram, Villupuram District.
6)	The Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District.
7)	The Tahsildar, Vannur, Villupuram District.
8)	The Sub Registrar, Vannur, Villupuram District.
9)	The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Villupuram, Villupuram District.
+1cc +1cc	to Mr.D.Jayasingh, Advocate, S.R.No.68490 to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.68696

¶41

W.P.No.16704 of 2021

¶42

SSI[co] NSK 05/01/2022

¶43

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

Alayamani Udayar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alayamani Udayar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Gopinath Vs Sameeran IAS

Yadhumoor Tamilarasan Vs Mr. Rajkumar

S.Dhanapal Vs The Tahsildhar

R.Selvaraj Vs The District Collector

B.G.Krishnan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.Balakrishnan Vs The special Tahsildar