JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2016 in C.S.No.555 of 2005.)

R. Subramanian, J.

1.The instant Appeal is against the judgement of the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court made in CS No.555 of 2005, a suit filed by the Appellant Temple seeking recovery of possession of an extent of 29 cents of land in Survey No.25/2 of Thiruvanmiyur Village which, according to the appellant, was encroached upon by the respondent while widening the Old Mahabalipuram Road (OMR).

2. According to the plaintiff, the land belonged to it under a patta granted by the Settlement Officer under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter reffered to as 'Act 26 of 1948'). Relying upon the relevant entries made in the ‘A’ Register which was marked as Exhibit P1, the Temple claimed title to the land.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendant viz., The Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, contending that in the Revenue records the land was shown as Government Poramboke and therefore, there is no question of any encroachment. Reliance was placed on the Town Survey Land Register of Thiruvanmiyur Village in support of the said contention. A plea was also taken that the Secretary to Government is a necessary party and the Chief Engineer Highways is not the sole Authority.

4. On the above pleadings, this Court had framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the claim of the plaintiff temple to be the owner of the suit property is supported by materials?

(ii) Whether the defendant is entitled to deny the validity of “A” Register?

(iii) Whether the suit property is a Government poromboke land as contemplated by the defendant in the written statement?

(iv) Whether the use of 29 cents of land in S.No.25/2 Thiruvanmiyur Village by the defendant for the purpose of expansion of East Coast Road, without initiating any proceedings under any of the Land Acquisition Laws, is valid and binding?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pay for recovery of possession?

(vi) Whether the defendant is liable to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- per month for use and occupation or to any other amount?

(vii) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. At Trial, PW.1 was examined on the side of the appellant/Temple and Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked. D.W.1 was examined on the side of the respondents and Exhibits D1 to D5 were marked.

6. The Hon’ble Judge, who tried the suit, dismissed the suit on two grounds:

(i) Non impleading of necessary party viz. the Secretary to Government, Department of Highways and Minor Ports, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai; and

(ii) That Ex.P1 viz., the ‘A’ Register being a Revenue Document will not assume the character of a title document.

The Hon’ble Single Judge concluded that there being different entries in the ‘A’ Register and TSLR, it will be incumbent upon the Temple to seek declaration of title, on the assumption that the conflict of entries would constitute a cloud on the title of the Temple, hence this Appeal.

7. Pending this Appeal, a Division Bench had suo motu impleaded the Secretary to Government, Department of Highways, on 21.11.2019. Thereafter, it appears from the record that there was an attempt to withdraw the appeal which was repelled by the Bench. Thereafter a Meeting was convened by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, High ways and Minor Ports Department on 26.07.2023 at 3.00 p.m. with the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department; Principal Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department; Commissioner of Land Administration; Director of Survey and Settlement and Commissioner, HR & CE, to discuss about the issue relatin