Point of Law: Appellant has miserably failed to establish a cogent link as to who were his predecessor in title and merely stating that patta has been granted would not be sufficient and going by such statement

JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18916 of 2018, dated 19.03.2019.)

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the Writ Petitioner, challenging the order dated 19.03.2019, passed in W.P.(MD) No.18916 of 2018, which was dismissed along with five other Writ Petitions. In the Writ Petition, the appellant challenged the order passed by the first respondent herein, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (HR & CE), Virudhunagar, dated 12.06.2017.

2. The impugned order in the Writ Petition is a communication sent by the first respondent to the fourth respondent/Tahsildar, Rajapalayam, by which, an objection was conveyed by the HR & CE Department stating that the subject lands were service Inam lands and it has been sold to private parties and the land belongs to the temple and therefore, the Tahsildar may not effect any mutation in the revenue records or cause sub-division of the survey numbers or record the same in the revenue records. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed the Writ Petitions with certain observations and by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar v. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department [2017 (3) CTC 135]. Though the Writ Petitions were allowed, the appellant is aggrieved by the said order and has filed the present appeal.

3. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.I.Velpradeep and Mr.P.Kottaisamy, learned counsel for the appellant sought for quashing the order passed by the first respondent as his case is different from the cases of the other writ petitioners and the learned Writ Court ought to have taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of K.Sudha Ravi Kumar (supra) in its entirety, more particularly, when the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 23 of the order held that once patta has been issued under either the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, it is for the Temple to establish the title before the Civil Court and the Sub-Registrar is bound to act on the basis of the Ryotwari Patta issued by the authorities concerned and he shall not refuse to register the documents. Therefore, it submitted that the case of the appellant is different as patta has been granted in his favour and if the Temple claims right over the property, then it is for the Temple to approach the Civil Court to establish its title and the order passed by the Writ Court, directing an enquiry in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in K.Sudha Ravi Kumar (supra) case cannot be made applicable to the case of the appellant.

4. We have heard Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent and Mr.K.Mu.Muthu, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the above submissions.

5. The appellant would contend that the land purchased by him by sale deed dated 13.04.2003, registered as document No.1383/2003, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Rajapalayam, is the land comprised in S.No.102/5D along with construction thereon, which is the property mentioned in Serial No.17 of the order dated 12.06.2017, impugned in the Writ Petition. It is further submitted that even in the said order in column No.6, name of the pattadar and patta number has been given as A.Velusamy and 12 others and patta No.1083. Therefore, it is submitted that in term of paragraph No.23 of the order in the case of K.Sudha Ravi Kumar (supra), it is for the first respondent Temple to approach the Civil