Dismissed

A.Dhandapani v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC14 Sept 2023WP/6092/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking writ to quash District Revenue Officer's order vesting temple land in temple and directing eviction of encroachers. High Court dismissed the writ finding no infirmity, relying on prior order vesting land with the temple.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order upheld. Petition dismissed. Authorities directed to amend revenue records in favour of the temple and initiate eviction of encroachers.

A.Dhandapani Vs The District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.6092 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.6092 of 2023

1.A.Dhandapani

2.Manivannan

3.R.Loganathan

4.Velumani

¶11

5.V.Gunasekaran

¶12

6.K.Deivanai

¶13

7.K.Jagannathan

¶14

8.Jothi

¶15

9.Sivakumar Shanmugam

¶16

10.S.Maragatham

¶17

11.V.Hemalatha

¶18

12.Renukadevi

13.C.Pushpavathy

14.C.Karthikeyan

Page 1 of 7

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

¶23

W.P.No.6092 of 2023

15.C.Devipriya

... Petitioners

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶28

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment, Tiruppur.

¶29

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Alagapuri Amman Thirukoil, Alagumalai Village, Tiruppur (South) Taluk, Tiruppur.

¶30

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶31

The Tahsildar,

¶32

Tiruppur(South), Tiruppur District.

¶33

6.The Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶34

7.P.Palusamy,

¶35

8.N.Babu

9.A.Ramasamy Gounder

10.S.Senthilkumar

Page 2 of 7

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

¶40

W.P.No.6092 of 2023

11.Kalavathi

12.Thangalakshmi

13.Palanisamy

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order dated 21.09.2022 in Ni.Mu.No.17609/2018/J2 on the file of the 1 st respondent, quash the same, consequently direct the 6 th respondent to conduct an enquiry, relating to issuance of Patta to us in respect of Survey No.387, Alagumalai Village, Tiruppur South Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶46

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Manimaran For R1, R4 to R6 : Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader. For R2 : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate (HR & CE). For R3 : Ms.G.Sumitra For R7, R9 to R13 : Mr.G.Saravanan For R8 : Mr.M.Muruganantham

¶47

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

¶48

Page 3 of 7

¶49

W.P.No.6092 of 2023

¶50

O R D E R

¶51

The order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur in proceeding dated 21.09.2022 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

¶52

The petitioners state that the subject land described in the writ petition have been classified as “un-enfranchised iruvaram Devadayam Inam” granted for the support and maintenance of Arulmigu Alagapuri Amman Temple situated at Alagumalai Village. The forefathers of the petitioners were maintaining the temple lands and performing the poojas, rituals in their capacity as hereditary trustees. The petitioners state that Patta has been granted in the name of their forefathers by the settlement Tahsildhar and accordingly they hold title over the subject property.

¶53

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3^rd

¶54

respondent/temple drew the attention of this Court with reference to the order passed by the High Court of Madras in S.T.Appeal No.89 of 1972 against the S.T.P.No.472 of 1974. Therefore, the order passed in S.T.Appeal No.89 of 1972 was taken by way of an appeal before the High Court. The Statutory

¶55

Page 4 of 7

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.No.6092 of 2023

¶58

Appeal was preferred by the Arulmigu Alagapuri Amman Temple represented by its hereditary trustees.

¶59

The High Court held that the subject properties vest with the temple

¶60

and based on that the District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur passed the impugned order dated 21.09.2022. The petitioners are relying on the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar which was overruled by the High Court in S.T.A.No.89 of 1972 on 27.11.1974. In view of the fact that the High Court has already passed an order holding that the subject lands vest with the temple, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Tirupur.

¶61

In view of the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, the Authorities concerned are directed to make necessary changes in the revenue records in favour of the temple as per the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer. The Temple Authorities and H.R. &C.E. Department are directed to initiate all appropriate actions to evict the encroachers and utilise the temple land for the benefit of the temple and in accordance with the H.R.

¶62

& C.E. Act.

¶63

Page 5 of 7

¶64

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

¶65

W.P.No.6092 of 2023

¶66

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed . No costs.

¶67

14.09.2023

¶68

Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes (veda/sha)

¶69

¶70

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶71

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment, Tiruppur.

¶72

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Alagapuri Amman Thirukoil, Alagumalai Village, Tiruppur (South) Taluk, Tiruppur.

¶73

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶74

The Tahsildar, Tiruppur(South), Tiruppur District.

¶75

6.The Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶76

Page 6 of 7

¶77

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

¶78

W.P.No.6092 of 2023

¶79

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

sha

W.P.No.6092 of 2023

14.09.2023

Page 7 of 7

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

A.Dhandapani v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Dhandapani v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xavier Britto Vs The Secretary to the Government of India

S.Sampath Vs The Sub Registrar

L.Srinivasulu Vs The Secretary

R.Rajaveni (Died), Vs The State of Tamil nadu

K.S.Dravida Mani Vs the District Registrar

Sakkara Rasu Vs The state of Tamil nadu