Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
J. Sundararajan @ Sundaram
Versus
The District Collector & Others
W.P. (MD) No. 3093 of 2009
Decided on: 06-06-2014
Writ Petition - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983, Rules - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 and the Rules made thereunder, and highlighted the authority of the Tahsildar to modify entries in the Patta Pass Book under specific circumstances. The court also emphasized the need for the Tahsildar to give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned and to conduct thorough enquiry before passing orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a trustee of a temple, filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the second respondent and seeking a direction to transfer the patta in the name of the temple for certain properties. The petitioner claimed that the patta was changed without notice, and the Tahsildar refused to transfer the patta despite no objection from the Joint Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar to pass orders afresh, emphasizing the need for thorough enquiry and affording sufficient opportunity to all parties concerned.
Issues: Dispute over transfer of patta for temple properties, refusal of Tahsildar to transfer patta, and lack of notice regarding patta change.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tahsildar is empowered to modify entries in the Patta Pass Book under specific circumstances and must provide reasonable opportunity to parties concerned and conduct thorough enquiry before passing orders.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, and the matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar for proper verification and to pass appropriate orders.
1. The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 20.02.2009, of the second respondent and also seeking a direction to the second respondent to transfer the patta in respect of the properties situated at Nilayoor II Bit, Thirupparankundram in Old Survey.No.293, Re-Survey.Nos.283/2A, 283/2B and 283/2C, of an extent of 3 acres 65½ cents in the name of Arulmighu Veyilukkugandha Amman Temple, Thirupparankundram, and 50 cents in Old Survey.No.293, Re-Survey.Nos.283/2A, 283/2B and 283/2C in the name of Poojaries.
2. The brief facts set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are as follows:
(i) The petitioner is one of the trustees of Arulmighu Veyilukkugandha Amman Temple, Thirupparankundram, along with 11 others. The said temple is under the management of the petitioner and 11 others. The lands in Old Survey Nos.177, 199/4, 576/1 and 399/8 belonged to Arulmighu Veyilukkugandha Amman Temple. While so, in an extent of 78 cents in Survey No.177, a portion of the property was taken by the Railway line and the remaining extent of about 25 cents is available with the temple.
(ii) In respect of Survey No.199/4, it has an extent of 38 cents and the same was the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.95 of 1983 filed by Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer, for the relief of recovery of possession, as against the person, who managed the temple viz., Arulmighu Veyilukkugandha Amman Temple. The defendants in the said suit questioned the right of Arulmighu Meenkashi Sundareswarar Devasthanam and also claimed the right of management and poojariship in the temple. The Sub Court, Madurai, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff, viz., Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam did not have any right over the temple and further, the defendants in the suit were all poojaries and were in management of the temple and, therefore, there cannot be a decree for recovery of possession, against which, no appeal was filed.
(iii) The property in Survey No.576/1, having an extent of 2.2 acres, stands in the name of Arulmighu Veyilukkugandha Amman Temple, Thirupparankundram. The land in Survey No.660 was taken over by the Government for the purpose of running an Educational Institution. No amount was given towards compensation.
(iv) The properties in Survey Nos.1271/1 and 110/7 were acquired by Madurai Co-operative Society, for construction of houses and the compensation given towards was utilized for purchasing the property in the name of the temple, by a sale deed executed by Vaduvammal and others, which comprised in Old Survey No.293, having an extent of 3 acres and 65 ½ cents, in a total extent of 5 acres 65 cents. An extent of 50 cents was also gifted in the name of poojaries, by gift deed dated 18.11.1950 and the Old Survey No.293 has been re-surveyed as Survey Nos.283/2A, 283/2B and 283/2C.
(v) Though the property was purchased only in the name of Arulmighu Veyilukkugandha Amman Temple, Thirupparankundram, the respondents, during re-survey, has changed the name in the patta, by including Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam, without giving notice to the petitioner as well as the other trustees of Arulmighu Veyilukkungandha Amman Temple. Re-Survey Nos.283/2B and 283/2C stand in the name of Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam and Re-Survey No.283/2A stands in the name of Krishnan, S/o.Palaniyandi.
(vi) On coming to know about the change of patta, the petitioner, as a trustee and hereditary poojari of Arulmighu Veyilukkugandha Amman Temple, filed a petition before the second respondent, on 17.01.2008, requesting to change patta in the name of Arulmighu Veyilukkungandha Amman Temple, with respect to an extent of 3 acres 65 ½ cents in Re-Survey Nos.283/2A, 283/2B and 283/2C. Since the second respondent has not considered the representation so far, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition and this Court, by or
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
