A temple challenged an appellate revenue order restoring patta to the fourth respondent over temple land, alleging bogus documents. Holding it a pure civil title dispute unsuitable for Article 226 adjudication, the Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to approach the civil court, the impugned order being subject to any such suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.6303 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.6303 of 2018 and
WMP.Nos.7787 & 7788 of 2018
Devendra Kula Sri Veeramathiamman Koil, Rep. by its President V.Baladhandayutham, Door No.87/17, K.S.Shanmugapandy Street, Palakadu Main Road, Kuniamuthoor, Coimbatore – 641 008.
...Petitioner
Vs.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 06.06.2016 in Na.Ka.No.267/2014 and quash the same.
1/8
W.P.No.6303 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan, AGP, for R1 & R3 : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, Spl.GP, for R2 : No Appearance, for R4
O R D E R
This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 06.06.2016 in Na.Ka.No.267 of 2014.
2/8
W.P.No.6303 of 2018
Challenging the same, this Writ Petition has been filed.
petitioner temple is the owner of the subject property and as the 4th respondent obtained patta in his name by using bogus documents, the petitioner filed petition before the 1st respondent, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent after careful consideration of all the documents placed before it, had cancelled the bogus patta obtained by the 4th respondent. However, without considering any of the above said facts, the 2nd respondent, vide impugned order had mechanically directed the Tahsildar, Coimbatore to restore the patta in respect of the subject property in favour of the 4th respondent, which is not sustainable and the same was passed by the 2nd respondent without any jurisdiction and the same has to necessarily be interfered with. Learned counsel further submitted that, when the claim of the 4th respondent itself pertains to only the house, the 2nd respondent had mechanically considered the entire property belonging to the petitioner temple and held that the entire property belongs to one Veerappan and the 4th respondent and further ordered for restoration of patta in favour of the 4th respondent, which cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.
3/8
W.P.No.6303 of 2018
4/8
W.P.No.6303 of 2018
court and workout its remedy in the manner known to law, if it has any documents to establish its title over the subject property. Further, it is made clear that, the impugned order is subject to the result of the suit to be filed by the petitioner.
5/8
W.P.No.6303 of 2018
03.09.2024
skt NCC : Yes/ No Speaking Order : Yes/ No Index : Yes/ No
To
6/8
W.P.No.6303 of 2018
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt
W.P.No.6303 of 2018 and WMP.Nos.7787 & 7788 of 2018
7/8
W.P.No.6303 of 2018
03.09.2024
8/8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a title dispute between a temple and a private party over patta restoration can be adjudicated under Article 226 or must go to the civil court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devendra Kula Sri Veeramathiamman Koil, Rep. by its President V.Baladhandayutham
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore
Special Officer cum District Revenue Divisional Officer, (Temple Lands) – Coimbatore
The Commissioner of Land Administration, Land Administration Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005
M.Manian
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
