The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 in determining ownership of land and the presumption of correctness of entries in the Patta Pass Book.

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 3 and the Learned Counsel for the Fourth Respondent.

2. According to the Petitioner, besides being a permanent resident of Door No.338, Kottai Nagar, Sengadu, Bhavani Post and Taluk, Erode District, he is one of the devotees of Sri Angalamman Temple and hence, filed the present Writ Petition on account of his personal interest. The Land, comprising in Re-Survey No.611/21 in respect of the property comprised in S.No.186 (Natham) situated at Olagadam Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District, was subdivided into Re-survey Nos.611/21, 611/31 and 611/32 by Proceedings dated 09.10.2001 bearing Ref.No.TK8A/43/1411 on the file of the Third Respondent.

3. In fact, the Land in S.No.611/23 is owned by the Fourth Respondent and it is a patta Land and situated adjacent to the Land comprised in S.No.611/31 and 611/32. The Fourth Respondent had applied for patta as if he purchased part of the property from the above Survey Number.

4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Third Respondent/Tahsildar, Bhavani Taluk, Bhavani, Erode District, without perusing any document and also even without producing any document to point out that the Fourth Respondent is the owner of the Property has sub divided the aforesaid Land, comprised in S.No.611/21 as 611/31 and 611/32, in which, the property comprised in S.No611/31, the patta was issued to and in favour of the Fourth Respondent and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

5. The primordial plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that the whole property is situated in S.No.611/21 admeasuring 355 Sq.Mt, which belongs to Sri Angalaman Temple and these Lands are utilised for all festivals and other performances related to the Temple. All the devotees of the Temple are looking after the same and administering the Temple. Some portions of the said Land was allotted to the Pujari of the Temple Mr. Madhappan and he was permitted to construct a house for his residence, which is adjacent to the Temple and he constructed a house and was residing there and administering and maintaining the Temple.

6. When that be the situation, the Fourth Respondent had encroached some portions of the Land, measuring 2.5 cents as if he had purchased the said property and secured patta by sub dividing the Survey Number in the aforesaid manner. It is also situated adjacent to his patta and he had put up a compound wall. Further, he is enduring to enter into the Land of Pujari Mr. Madhappan for his pathway in the Land comprised in S.No.611/32 which is in possession and enjoyment of the said Pujari and his family.

7. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to point out that the Petitioner had requested the Respondents by projecting several representations to cancel the patta issued in favour of the Fourth Respondent in respect of the Land comprised in S.No.31 and to remove the encroachment from the said property, which belongs to Temple.

8. Even the Petitioner's application filed under Right to Information Act to provide the order of issuance of patta dated 09.10.2001 bearing Ref.No.TK8A/43/14111 was not provided by the Respondents and the matter is pending before the Appellate Commission. More over, the State Commission was pleased to direct the Third Respondent to provide information sought for in the subject matter and also levied cost of Rs.25,000/- to be payable by the Third Respondent/Tahsildar, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. Inspite of the same, the copies of the said Order were not provided to the Petitioner.

9. The real grievance of the Petitioner is that the Fourth Respondent is endeavouring to encroach on the other properties of the Temple comprised in S.No.611/32, which is now in possession and enjoyment of the said Pujari Mr. Madhappan. The said Pu