Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Mad) 5304

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
Arulmighu Thiruvateeswarar Devasthanam Triplicane Rep. by its Executive Officer Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Land Administration Department Fort St. George & Others
W.P. NO.7649 OF 2002
Decided on : 04-12-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: B. Kumar, Senior Counsel for M/s.T.R. Rajaraman, Pushpa Satyanarayana.
For the Respondent:R-1 to 4, Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate, R-5,6,8,9,10,11,12,15 to 28, 30 to 44, 46, 48, 49, 51 to 57, 59 to 61, 66 to 69, 70 to 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 to 86, 88 to 90, 92, 93, 96 to 99, 101 to 105, 107 to 113, 115, 117, 123, M/s.T.N.Rajagopalan, R-118 & 19, M/s.S.Thankasamy, R-124, M/s.R.S.Ranganadhan, R-121, M/s.P.Seshadri, R-45,90 & 113, M/s.D.Kanaga Sundaram

The judgment establishes the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, and emphasizes the importance of historical documents in determining the nature of grants and entitlement to patta.

Headnote:
Writ of Certiorari - Religious Institution - Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Section 44, Section 8(2), Section 13(2) - The judgment discusses the nature of the grant, quit rent, and entitlement to patta under the Act. The court analyzes historical documents, town survey registers, and sale deeds to determine the nature of the grant and the rights of the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a religious institution, sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash an order passed by the 4th respondent. The case involved a dispute over lands granted to the petitioner in 1734 and 1787, and the entitlement to patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the grant in question covered only 'melwaram' and not 'kudiwaram', entitling the petitioner to collect revenue as 'quit rent'. The court also held that the presumption under Section 44 of the Act was rebuttable, and the contesting respondents had discharged the presumption. The court declined to interfere with the findings of fact made by the 4th respondent and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the grant, entitlement to patta, and the interpretation of historical documents and legal provisions under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of historical documents, including town survey registers and sale deeds, to determine the nature of the grant and the rights of the parties involved. The court also emphasized the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 44 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the 4th respondent.

Judgment

The petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in R.Dis.K1/R.P.12/95, dated 112. 2001 and quash the same.

2. This case has a long history to trace. The historical background of the case starts from the year 1734 onwards. Unfortunately, the dispute started in the year 1970 has continued till date. In the attempt to resolve the dispute the factual matrix is necessary.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows:

The writ petitioner is a religious institution. By two cowls dated 011. 1734 and 10.08.1787 which are in the nature of grants inam of lands have been granted to the petitioner. The lands originally form part of Pudupakkam Village which now forms part of the present Royapettah were originally owned by the Nawabs. After the entry of the East India Company into Chennai, the then Nawabs ceded the said lands in favour of the Company. Thereafter, the East India Company has made the grants referred above in favour of the petitioner. The grants in favour of the petitioner are called Thiruvateeswarar Shothrium which is a religious grant.

The petitioner does not have the cowls granted by the East India Company in its favour. The petitioner also does not have the title deeds to confirm the inam made in its favour. The Inam Fair Register which is usually under the custody of the petitioner is also not available. The petitioner temple is situated in Triplicane and the properties which are subject matter of the writ petition are in Royapettah.

The petitioner has produced extract of "quit rent register" indicating the name of the owner with the particulars of the property and the amount payable as "quit rent" which is called in Tamil as "epy thp". The petitioner has also produced before this Honble Court some other additional documents which are as follows:

Table

After the coming into existence of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 which is otherwise called as Tamil Nadu Act, 30 of 1963, an order was passed by the Settlement Tahsildar who is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition in and by his proceedings No.G.R.Sr.No.37/MSR dated 25.05.1971 granting patta to the various parties including the respondents. The petitioner did not appear for the said enquiry even though notice was served. Accordingly the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that the grant made in favour of the petitioner was only a "melvaram" which is a right to collect "quit rent" and the land and building belong to the occupants. In other words, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to collect the revenue alone from the occupants to whom the pattas were issued.

Since in the said proceedings some lands were classified as poramboke lands, a revision was filed by some persons before the Settlement Officer, Chengalpet and the same was allowed in favour of the revision petitioners therein. It appears that no further steps have been taken by the petitioner to challenge the said order.

However after an inordinate and huge delay of 11 years, the petitioner filed a revision challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 25.05.1971 before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpet. The said revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 20.06.1982 as barred by limitation. Again after two years, the petitioner filed a further revision before the Settlement Officer, namely the 3rd respondent herein on 06.09.1984. The said revision filed by the petitioner in R.P.12 of 1988 was allowed on the sole ground that in view of the presumption available under Section 44 of Act 30 of 1963 in favour of the petitioner they are entitled to get the patta.

Thereafter, the respondents 5 to 126 preferred a revision before the 4th respondent who in turn allowed it by setting aside the order passed in R.P.12 of 1988 based upon the materials available on record including the documents tracing title in favour of the respondents 5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document