Arulmigu Bothanayagi Amman Temple Vs Synammal

3.The case on hand pertains to the land comprised in S.No.201/2, Ponampatti Village. The first respondent herein felt aggrieved by the entry of the name of the appellant / temple in the revenue record as per UDR. The District Revenue Officer vide order dated 28.04.2021 came to the conclusion that since the writ petitioner / first respondent herein did not appear to be in possession of the property, patta cannot be issued in favour of her. The learned Single Judge set aside the said order and allowed the writ petition and directed issuance of patta in favour of the writ petitioner.

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.A.(MD)No.1424 of 2025

¶27

4.The question that calls for consideration is whether the order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference.

¶28

5.There is no dispute that the petition mentioned property originally belonged to the appellant / temple. Some time in the year 1929, the then Dharmakarta of the temple had sold the property in favour of Naina Mohammed Rowther. Following the introduction of Inanm Abolition Law, claim was laid before the Settlement Tahsildar by the predecessor in title of the writ petitioner herein. The Settlement Tahsildar negatived the said request. Aggrieved by the same, the predecessor in title of the writ petitioner filed C.M.A.No.101 of 1968 on the file of the Sub Court (Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal), Tirchy. The Inam Abolition Tribunal allowed the CMA and set aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar on condition that the appellant therein (Sheik Mohammed Rowther) should pay quit-rent at the rate of 20 times of the kist value under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963. It is not in dispute that this order passed by the Inam Abolition Tribunal had attained finality. In any event, there is nothing on record to show

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.A.(MD)No.1424 of 2025

¶32

that the appellant / temple filed any STA against the said order. The appellant / temple does not appear to have filed any civil suit seeking declaration of title in its favour. In these circumstances, the District Revenue Officer ought to have gone by the Inam Abolition Tribunal's order and he could not have taken any independent decision. This proposition stands settled by the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 1996 (I) CTC 217 (Palaniappa Pandaram Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner Land Administration) . The learned Single Judge merely applied the aforesaid decision in favour of the writ petitioner and allowed the writ petition.

¶33

6.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even though the Inam Abolition Tribunal directed the appellant therein to pay quit-rent, there is nothing on record to show that the quit-rent was paid. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was not able to produce any receipt.

¶34

7.This aspect of the matter need not detain us. When “A” register reflects the name of the writ petitioner's predecessor in title, the name of the appellant / temple could not have been entered during UDR.

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.A.(MD)No.1424 of 2025

¶38

8.The approach adopted by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference. We make it clear that we have not gone into the issue of possession. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶39

(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 11.06.2025

¶40

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶41

To:

¶42

The District Revenue Officer - Cum - Additional District Magistrate, Trichy.

¶43

5/6

¶44

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