Valid title in property law is upheld despite prior service conditions when the original grant has been complied with and subsequent transfers are unchallenged.

ORDER :

1. The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“To call for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Sulur/14/2024 dated 20.05.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent and the proceedings dated 29.03.2012 issued by the 4th respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the settlement deed dated 20.05.2024 executed by the petitioner in favour of the petitioners brother Thiru Senthil Ramasamy in respect of the property measuring 8.58 acres bearing s.f. No 1, Paruvai village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.”

2. Challenging the refusal check slip dated 20.05.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent and the proceedings dated 29.03.2012 issued by the 4^th respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The facts set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is herein below set out.

4. The petitioner would submit that the property comprised in S.F.No.1 and other lands comprised in S.No.272, Paruvai village were unenfranchised devadayam minor inam lands, granted for rendering “thutari Uzhiyam” in the pagoda of the 4^th respondent temple as per TD.No.1328. The said properties vested with the Government pursuant to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The Settlement Tahsildar II had initiated suo motu proceedings and by order dated 05.05.1968 accepted the claim of the 4^th respondent temple only with respect to the lands in SF.No.272 measuring 7.19 acres and not in respect of the SF.No.1.

5. The Settlement Tahsildar II, Gobichttipalayam, had accepted the claim of Palaniappan son of Cinna Pandaram with reference to SF.No.1 measuring 8.58 acres and granted ryotwari patta under Section 8 (2) (ii) read with Section 21 (3) of the Act, subject to the condition that, holder would continue to render service and he had the option either to pay 20 times the difference between fair rent in respect of the land determined by the Tahsildar, Tiruppur and the land revenue due on such land and on such payment, the land would be discharged from the condition of service or he was given option to hold the lands and continue to render service subject to Sub Section 1, 2, 6 and 7 of Section 21. The option referred to in class (i) of Section 21 should be exercised within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

6. The petitioner would submit that this order has attained finality as there was no appeal filed under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The petitioner has also come to understand that the 4^th respondent had quantified the amount payable under Section 20 (4) and the same has also been paid by his predecessor in title. Therefore, on payment of the said amount Palaniappan had become absolute owner.

7. The said Palaniappan along with his sons sold the subject lands to N.Nachimuthu Gounder under a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1971. Nachimuthu had mortgaged the property with the Indian Oversees Bank, Sulur and later redeemed it. After his death, all his legal heirs had executed a sale deed dated 03.12.1990 in favour of one Rakkiappa Gounder. Rakkiappa had got the revenue records mutated in his name including patta.

8. The said Rakkiappa in turn sold the subject lands to the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 07.12.2001. The petitioner had been in enjoyment of the said lands since then and had also got the patta mutated in his name in patta No.801. The petitioner had thereafter decided to settle the property on his brother. To do so, he had verified the encumbrance certificate wherein he was shocked to le