Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes; they assess claims based on prima facie evidence. The petitioner failed to substantiate her claim, leading to the dismissal of her petition.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent, viz., District Revenue Officer, Madurai, dated 03.12.2020.

2. I have heard Mr. P. Balamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. I have also gone through the records.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property was standing in the name of the petitioner's father, viz., Veyelumuthu Yogeswarar even from the year 1946 pursuant to the order passed by the then Collector Madurai, in Ni.Mu.No.13087/46 on 30.01.1946. The revenue records including patta, chitta, Adangal have always been in the name of the petitioner's father up to 2006. According to the petitioner on 01.09.2006, the petitioner's father settled the property in the petitioner's favour by document No.6994/2006, and thereafter, the petitioner has mutated revenue records in her name and has been in enjoyment of the subject property. However, the respondents 2 and 3 temple have projected a version as if patta was mutated in the name of the petitioner only in T.R dated 15.10.2018 by the Madurai West Tahsildar and earlier the subject property was only in the name of the third respondent temple.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner producing all the revenue records right from 1974, including registered settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and the third respondent temple not being able to produce any documents in support of their title and possession, the first respondent, without properly appreciating the documents, has proceeded to passed the impugned order. It is further contended by the petitioner that the first respondent failed to consider that even as early as on 10.05.1974 patta passbook only reflected the petitioner's father's name and not a single document has been placed by the respondent temple to substantiate their claim. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. Vs. The District Collector, 2011 (5) CTC 94 and contend that the respondents 2 and 3 will have to approach the competent civil Court to establish their title and the revenue authorities erred in cancelling the patta in the name of the petitioner and directing the name of the temple to be mutated in his place and further directing both the parties to approach the competent civil Court.

5. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel appearing for the temple, namely, respondents 2 and 3, would contend that the dispute which exists in the present matter involves a complex factual matrix which cannot be decided either by the revenue authorities or by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the petitioner has already approached the civil Court and has even suppressed the said factum in the present writ petition. As regards the claim of the respondent temple, the learned counsel would submit that the subject lands were given for performance for service called “Sikaram Kaval” and is duly covered by title deed in T.D.No.394. According to the learned counsel for the respondent temple, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, even in 1936, proceedings were initiated by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur and the lands were resumed clearly finding that the grant was a Melvaram alone. However, consequently, original suit in O.S.No.2 of 1938 declared that the claim was not only Melvaram but also Kudivaram and subsequently, the temple is entitled to both Varams. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent temple, after the Minor Inam Abolition Act 30/1963, was enacted, the Settlement Tahsildar, after conducting due enquiry, by proceedings dated 01.08.1967 granted a settlement patta in favour of the temple and the temple has leased the said property to various tenants and is collecting rents from the said tenant