Patta issued by Assistant Settlement Officer under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act prevails until legally challenged; property claims by temple must be pursued in civil court.

ORDER :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P.(MD)Nos.3442, 3665, 4048, 5093, 5094, 5095, 5096, 5097, 5098, 5099, 5100, 5480 of 2026, 198, 29407, 29408, 29479, 29481, 30453, 30454 of 2025, 23152 of 2024 have been filed challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slips dated 18.11.2025, 15.07.2025, 26.05.2025, 10.07.2025, 30.01.2025, 03.12.2025, 18.03.2025, 01.08.2025, 30.01.2025, 07.02.2025, 30.01.2025, 31.07.2025, 22.11.2024, 29.04.2025, 21.08.2025, 20.02.2025, 03.04.2025, 20.02.2025, 19.12.2024 and 21.02.2023 respectively issued by the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to register the document submitted by the petitioners in respect of the subject property.

2. W.P.(MD)No.34108 of 2025 has been filed challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 24.09.2025 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal and for a consequential direction to the first and second respondents to register the documents submitted by the petitioner in respect of the subject property.

3. W.P.(MD).No.14730 of 2023 has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to accept the document for registration to be submitted by the petitioner with regard to the subject property within a time frame fixed by this Court.

4. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is common, these writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had presented the sale deeds before the Sub Registrar for registration. However, the same was refused by the concerned respondent by issuing the impugned Refusal Check Slips on the ground that the subject property belongs to a temple.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that, after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Settlement Officer for the grant of ryotwari patta. During the said proceedings, the petitioners’ predecessors-in-title were in possession and enjoyment of the property and had participated in the enquiry. The respondent temple had also participated in the proceedings. After conducting a detailed enquiry and hearing all parties, the Assistant Settlement Officer granted inam ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioners’ predecessors under Section 11(2)(b) of the said Act.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that, as against the said order, an appeal remedy is provided under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer of the respondent temple preferred an appeal challenging the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, and the same came to be dismissed. Therefore, the said order has attained finality. Hence, if the respondent temple claims any right over the property, it can only approach the competent Civil Court and establish its rights in the manner known to law.

8. Heard the learned Government Advocates and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the Temple submitted that the temple had participated in the inam proceedings. In respect of certain survey numbers, patta was granted in favour of the temple, and in respect of certain other lands, patta was granted in favour of private parties. They further relied upon an order passed by this Court wherein certain lands were declared as inam lands. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not parties to the said proceedings and, therefore, the said order is not