Dismissed

Kuppatha v. The District Collector

Madras HC22 Sept 2022WP/8441/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three writ petitions concerning land patta and possession on Principle of laches. The court found petitioners suppressed that prior appeals were dismissed after restoration, thus denying relief and directing them to seek legal remedies elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Prayers sought by petitioners in the writ petitions are denied; liberty granted to work out remedy known to law.

Kuppatha Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos. 16378 and 26855 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.17685, 21942, 28591 and 28592 of 2017

¶7

Kuppathal

¶8

S.Murthy

¶9

N.Sakthivel

¶10

S.Subbulakshmi

¶11

N.Subbathal

¶12

K.N.Balu

¶13

S.Mageshwari

¶14

...Petitioners in W.P.No.8441 of 2018

¶15

Kuppathal

¶16

S.Subbulakshmi

¶17

S.Mageshwari

¶18

S.Murthy

¶19

Sundarambal

¶20

Sivagami

¶21

1/13

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶24

Subbathal 8. Sakthivel 9. K.N.Balu ...Petitioners in W.P.No.16378 of 2017 N.Sakthivel ... Petitioner in W.P.No.26855 of 2017

¶25

vs.

¶26

The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶27

The District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶28

The Tahsildar, Tiruppur South Taluk, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶29

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visweswarar Swamy Visalatchi Amman Subramanyaswamy Temple, Nallur, Tirupur – 641 604. ... Respondents in W.P.No.8441 of 2018

¶30

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowments, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶31

2/13

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶34

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visweswarar Swamy Visalatchi Amman Subramanyaswamy Temple, Nallur, Tirupur – 641 604.

¶35

The Inspector of Police, Tirupur Rural Police Station, Nallur, Tiruppur District. ...Respondents in W.P.No.16378 of 2017

¶36

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowments, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶37

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visweswarar Swamy Visalatchi Amman Subramanyaswamy Temple, Nallur, Tirupur – 641 604.

¶38

The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. ... Respondents in W.P.No.26855 of 2017

¶39

W.P.No.8441 of 2018:

¶40

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to issue Patta to the petitioners in respect of lands situated in Survey No.143/2, 164/1 and 164/3, Nallur Village, Tiruppur South Taluk, Tirupur District by affording

¶41

3/13

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶44

opportunity to all concerned.

¶45

W.P.No.16378 of 2017:

¶46

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents forbearing the second and third respondents from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in R.S.Nos.164/1 and 164/3, Nallur Village, Tiruppur South Taluk, Tirupur District, without following the due process of law.

¶47

W.P.No.26855 of 2017:

¶48

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Na.Ka.No.36/2017, dated 20.09.2017 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioner for the property situated in R.S.Nos.143/2, Nallur Village, Tiruppur South Taluk, Tirupur District.

¶49

In W.P.No.8441 of 2018:

¶50

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Selvaraju for Mr.P.Kannan Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.U.Bharanidharan Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.K.Ashok Kumar

¶51

4/13

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶54

In W.P.No.16378 of 2017:

¶55

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Selvaraju for Mr.P.Kannan Kumar For R1 and R3 : Mr.U.Bharanidharan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.K.Ashok Kumar In W.P.No.26855 of 2017:

¶56

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Selvaraju for Mr.P.Kannan Kumar For R1 and R3 : Mr.V.Manoharan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.K.Ashok Kumar

¶57

COMMON ORDER

¶58

Since the issue involved in the present Writ Petitions are one and the

¶59

same, they are disposed of by way of common order.

¶60

So far as the Writ Petition in W.P.No.8441 of 2018 is concerned,

¶61

the petitioners claim that they inherited the properties in Survey Nos.143/2,

¶62

5/13

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶65

164/1 and 164/3 situated in Nallur Village, Tiruppur District from their ancestors. While that being so, the fourth respondent / Temple interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and the Settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam vide proceedings dated 07.10.1968 and 24.10.1968 issued Ryotwari Patta in favour of the then Trustee of the fourth respondent and refused to grant Patta in favour of the petitioners. Seeking Patta in respect of the aforesaid properties, the petitioners made a representation dated 06.10.2017, before respondents 1 to 3. Since the same was not considered by respondents 1 to 3, the petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶66

So far as the Writ Petition in W.P.No.16378 of 2017 is concerned the petitioners inherited the properties in R.S.Nos.164/1 and 164/3 situated in Nallur Village, Tiruppur District from their ancestors. Prior to the petitioner's possession, the second respondent / Temple claimed Patta with the Settlement Tahsildar No.II, Gobichettipalayam, who in turn passed an order dated 07.10.1968 and 24.10.1968, granting Ryotwari Patta in favour the then Trustee of the second respondent Temple. Aggrieved over the said

¶67

6/13

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶70

act, the petitioners ancestors preferred appeals in C.M.A.Nos.48, 50 and 51 of 1987 before the Principal Subordinate Court cum Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore and the same was allowed vide judgments dated 22.10.1991 respectively in favour of the petitioners ancestors. While that being so, the second and third respondents, gave hindrance to the petitioners possession and the petitioners have also made a representation dated 03.01.2017 before the third respondent to forbear the second and third respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession. Since the same was not considered by the third respondent the petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petition.

¶71

So far as the Writ Petition in W.P.No.26855 of 2017 is concerned,

¶72

the petitioner claims that he inherited the properties in R.S.Nos.143/2, Nallur Village, Tirupur District from their ancestors. Prior to the petitioner's possession, the second respondent / Temple claimed Patta with the Settlement Tahsildar No.II, Gobichettipalayam, who in turn passed an order dated 07.10.1968 and 24.10.1968, granting Ryotwari Patta in favour the then Trustee of the second respondent Temple. Aggrieved over the said act,

¶73

7/13

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶76

the petitioner's ancestors preferred appeals in C.M.A.Nos.48, 50 and 51 of 1987 before the Principal Subordinate Court cum Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore and and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 22.10.1991 respectively. After the demise of petitioner's father, the petitioner made a representation dated 05.04.2013, before the District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur, seeking Patta in respect of the aforesaid properties. However, no order has been passed. Subsequently the second respondent Temple issued a notice dated 20.09.2017, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶77

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the appeals in C.M.A.Nos.48, 50 and 51 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court cum Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore preferred by the petitioner's ancestors were allowed in their favour vide judgments dated 22.10.1991 respectively, the second respondent / Temple in W.P.No.26855 of 2017 issued notice dated 20.09.2017, directing the petitioner therein to vacate the premises though

¶78

8/13

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶81

they have no right over the said property. Hence, he prayed for quashment of the impugned notice dated 20.09.2017. He further submitted that it would suffice if this Court issues a direction to second and third respondents in the respective Writ Petitions to grant patta in favour of the petitioners by considering the petitioners representations in the respective Writ Petitions and pass appropriate orders within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court. Accordingly, he prayed for passing appropriate orders.

¶82

Per contra learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

¶83

official respondents submitted that though the aforesaid appeals preferred by the petitioners ancestors were allowed vide judgments dated 22.10.1991 by the Principal Subordinate Court cum Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore in their favour, the same was restored and later it was dismissed vide judgments dated 30.03.1996 and 21.01.1997 respectively. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petitions.

¶84

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent did not

¶85

dispute the facts submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader

¶86

9/13

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶88

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶89

appearing for the official respondents.

¶90

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶91

Though the facts stand as above, the petitioners claim that the Settlement Officer refused to grant Patta in their favour and granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of the Temple against which, the petitioners ancestors preferred appeals before the Principal Sub Court cum Minor Inam Abolition Act Tribunal, Coimbatore, in C.M.A.Nos.48, 50 and 51 of 1987 and the Tribunal vide order dated 22.10.1991 allowed the appeals in their favour. Per contra, the fourth respondent claims that the appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Tribunal. In view of the above, this Court directed the Registry to call for records in respect of C.M.A.Nos.50,48 and 51 from the file of the Principal Sub Court cum Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore and the same was produced before this Court. On a perusal of the same, it reveals that the petitioners ancestors preferred appeals before the Minor Inam Tribunal in C.M.A.Nos.48, 50 and 51 of

¶92

10/13

¶93

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶94

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶95

1987 in which an ex parte judgments dated 22.10.1991 was passed, which,

¶96

on the representation of the respondents, the appeals were restored back to file vide judgments dated 30.03.1996 and 21.01.1997 respectively and later, the aforesaid appeals were dismissed vide judgments dated 30.03.1996 and 21.01.1997. However, suppressing the above said facts, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petitions after a lapse of two decades in respect of the very same properties which cannot be sustained. Hence, the prayers sought for by the petitioners in these petitions cannot be acceded to.

¶97

For the reasons aforesaid these Writ Petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶98

22.09.2022

¶99

RAP Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No

¶100

11/13

¶101

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶102

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶103

To:

¶104

The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶105

The District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶106

The Tahsildar, Tiruppur South Taluk, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶107

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visweswarar Swamy, Visalatchi Amman, Subramanyaswamy Temple, Nallur, Tirupur – 641 604.

¶108

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowments, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶109

The Inspector of Police, Tirupur Rural Police Station, Nallur, Tiruppur District.

¶110

12/13

¶111

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶112

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶113

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶114

RAP

¶115

W.P.No.8441 of 2018 and W.P.Nos. 16378 and 26855 of 2017

¶116

22.09.2022

¶117

13/13

¶118

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Kuppatha v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuppatha 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

V.Kamalakannan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

B.Gokulanathan Vs the Settlement Officer

S.Sasirekha Vs the Sub Registrar

Mrs.Anandhi Vs The District Registrar

Mr.K.Hyder Ali, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Vadivammal Vs The District Collector