Dismissed

A.Radhakrishnan v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Dec 2021WP/2730/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ filed under Article 226 to direct Revenue officials to implement earlier orders for identifying temple lands. Court found partial compliance via status report, directed Director of Land Records to decide pending appeals, and mandated joint inspection within 12 weeks, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing District Revenue Officer to decide pending appeals within 12 weeks; ordering joint inspection of 65 items for retrieval within 12 weeks; no costs.

A.Radhakrishnan Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

W.P.No.2730 of 2017

¶6

A.Radhakrishnan Trustee, Arulmigu Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem Town. ...Petitioner (Party-in-Person) vs. 1. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem. 2. The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate/Sub Collector, Mettur, Salem District.

¶7

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem – 636 007. 4. The Assistant Director, Survey and Settlements, Salem – 636 001. 5. The Tahsildar, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. 6. The Special Tahsildar, Temple Lands, Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶8

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Omalur, Salem District. 8. The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem-1. ...Respondents (R8 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 19.07.2021 made in W.P.No.2730 of 2017)

¶9

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

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 4 to 7 to implement the proceedings of respondents 1 and 2 in Na.Ka.No.26719/2014 E5 dated 18.10.2016 and Na.Ka.No.939-2016-C dated 01.11.2016 respectively.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Radhakrishnan

¶12

(Party-in-Person)

¶13

For R1 to R5 and R7 : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham

¶14

Special Government Pleader

¶15

For R6 : Mr.T.Chezhiyan

¶16

For R8 : Mr.K.Sakthivel

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 4 to 7 to implement the proceedings of respondents 1 and 2 in Na.Ka.No.26719/2014 E5 dated 18.10.2016 and Na.Ka.No.939-2016-C dated 01.11.2016 respectively.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that the temple called Arulmigu Sendraya Perumal Thirukoil, situated at Pagalpatty Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, has vast extent of lands and the same has to identity for the welfare of the said temple. To identify the said temple lands, the petitioner approached the Revenue Officials and also made so many representations. The 1^st respondent conducted enquiry and passed order on 18.10.2016 to find out the said temple properties and directed the 2^nd to 7^th respondents to comply the said order. The 2^nd respondent also convened meeting and passed order on 01.11.2016 and directed the 4^th , 5^th and 8^th respondents to take appropriate action to identify the said temple lands. However, they did not take any steps, even to identity the said temple lands.

¶20

While pending the writ petition, the 8^th respondent has been impleaded and filed counter affidavit dated 21.09.2021, revealed that the proceedings initiated by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to identity and retrieval of the lands belonging to the said temple, which was bequeathed by the settlers in the year 1900 and 1925 by the family of Krishnasamy Naicker and Soundraraja Mudaliar.

¶21

While pending the writ petition, this Court by an order dated 19.07.2021 directed the 1^st respondent to conduct meeting

¶22

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

¶23

and shall draw a schedule to retrieve the said temple lands and file a report. The 1^st respondent filed a status report dated 14.08.2021, revealed that the 8^th respondent submitted the details of the lands belong to the temple comprised in 63 survey numbers with patta number, extent and pattadhar details who holds these lands and in this regard statement was also recorded from the officials. Accordingly, the properties are categorised as three parts. The property ad-measuring 136.56 acres stood in the name of the 8^th respondent/temple, is categorised as Part-1. The property ad-measuring 81.89 acres categorised as Part-2. The 8^th respondent have taken steps to retrieve the lands in favour of the temple and appeals are pending before the District Revenue Officer, Salem in respect of the lands ad-measuring 77.86 acres and in respect of the lands ad-measuring 4.03 acres which were given service inam lands. Insofar as land admeasuring more than 100 acres categorised as Part-3 as per the settlement deed which was executed in favour of the 8^th respondent/temple, were occupied by the private persons. Therefore, the 8^th respondent could not able to identity the said properties with proper survey numbers.

¶24

Therefore, this Court by an order dated 31.08.2021 directed the 1^st , 4^th and 6^th respondents to verify the records produced by the 8^th respondent/temple to find out the survey numbers and villages which are correlated to the paimash numbers produced by the 8^th respondent. After the interim direction issued by this Court, finally the 1^st respondent filed compliance report today. Accordingly, they identified the land ad-measuring 68 acres situated at Pagalpatti Village, Omalur Taluk in Patta No.2. It stood in the name of the 8^th respondent/temple and it is a cultivable land. They identified another land ad-measuring 62.86 acres situated at Sellapillaikuttai Village, Omalur Taluk, stood in the name of the 8^th respondent/temple in Patta Nos. 1 and 6, it is also cultivable land. Another property ad-measuring 5.73 acres situated at Sellapillaikuttai Village, Omalur Taluk, stood in the name of the Arulmigu Paagalpatti Bujangeeswarar Swami Temple in Patta No.7 also identified and found that it is a cultivable land. Thus, the total extent of land ad-measuring 136.49 acres stood in the name of the 8^th respondent/temple under cultivation.

¶25

In respect of appeals filed by the 8^th respondent with regard to 63 patta issued in the name of individuals are pending. The old and new revenue records from the year 1937 to till date have been correlated and identified some of the properties vide Document No.1986/1925 were correlated with the properties which are under appeals filed by the 8^th respondent.

¶26

Considering the same, the District Revenue Officer, Salem is directed to consider the appeals filed by the 8^th respondent

¶27

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

¶28

and after giving opportunity of hearing to the 8^th respondent and counter parties, if any, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1^st , 4^th and 6^th respondents are directed to take joint inspection as per the records produced by the 8^th respondent/temple to identity the properties situated in seven villages viz., Omalur, Pachanampatti, Kottamettupatti, Sikkampatti, Vellakalpatti, Kottagoundanpatti and Sellapillaikuttai in respect of 65 items of the subject properties and take appropriate steps to retrieve the properties belonging to the 8^th respondent/temple, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar dm

¶33

¶34

The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶35

The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate/Sub Collector, Mettur, Salem District.

¶36

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem – 636 007.

¶37

The Assistant Director, Survey and Settlements, Salem – 636 001.

¶38

The Tahsildar, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶39

The Special Tahsildar, Temple Lands, Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶40

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

¶41

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Omalur, Salem District.

¶42

The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem-1.

¶43

Copy to

¶44

The District Revenue Officer, Salem District.

¶45

+1cc to Mr.K.Sakthivel, Advocate, S.R.No.64283 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.64810 +1cc to the Government Pleader, (HR&CE) S.R.No.64737

¶46

W.P.No.2730 of 2017

¶47

KV(CO) RGA(23/12/2021)

¶48

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

A.Radhakrishnan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Radhakrishnan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Mythili Vs Purva Garg

Tmt.Mishez Avari Vs the Principal Secretary and

V.Chandrasekaran Vs Senthil Kumar

G.Mahesh, S/o.Ganesan, Vs State rep by its

A.Pichan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Immanuel John Vs The Collector