O R D E R

nd The Writ on hand has been instituted directing the 2 respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 07.10.2020.

2. The petitioner states that he is the owner of the land and building at No.154, Pycrofts Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 14. His family is in possession ever since his Grandfather, Late.Shri.Baijinath Karnani had bought the subject property by registered Document No.2381 of 1909. Patta was issued in the name of the Grandfather of the writ petitioner, who in turn sold certain shops and purchased a share of land from his brother’s son of the same property, which was also registered.

3. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of patta, which was rejected by the Tahsildar, Mylapore, by proceedings dated 25.08.2022 mainly on the ground that the subject land stands in the name of Arulmigu Thiruvatteeswarar Swamy Devasthanam. Patta originally granted in favour of the persons based on the order of the Settlement Officer was reversed and again it was re-entered in the name of the Temple. Somehow, Patta has been granted subsequently. Whether any manipulations of revenue records or fraud, if any, is to be enquired into. The Temple filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.7649 of 2002 and the Writ Petition was disposed of on 04.12.2009 against the Temple. Thus, the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.660 of 2010 was filed by the Temple. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had heard the matter and reserved orders.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader made a submission that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is not a party to the Writ Appeal. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department being the administrative controller of the Temples across the State of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, they will be in a position to place all the records relating to the Temple properties and protect the interest of the property belonging to the Temple. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader made a submission that steps will be taken to implead the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department as party in the Writ Appeal. However, it is for the Department to initiate all appropriate actions to protect the interest of the Temple properties.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that right from the year 2009, the property is a patta land and several persons had already been issued with patta.

7. No doubt, the patta initially granted was cancelled and restored in the name of the Temple and subsequently, patta was granted in the name of private persons. However, the subject matter is pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.660 of 2010.

8. The Tahsildar had rejected the application submitted by the writ petitioner for grant of patta mainly on the ground that the Writ Appeal filed by the Temple is pending before the High Court of Madras.

9. The learned Special Government Pleader based on the written instructions from the Temple Authorities made a submission that the subject lands to the larger extent was granted to the Temple by way of Inam on

01.11.1734 and 10.08.1787.

10. At the time of conducting the re-survey of the lands in Chennai, a larger extent of land including the subject property has been stated as the properties belonging to the Temple and the Temple leased out the properties and collected land rent from the occupants.

11. Certain persons approached the Settlement Tahsildar, who in turn passed an order in favour of the private individuals. Pertinently, the Temple Trustees during the relevant point of time had remained ex-parte before the Settlement Officer and not represented the case of the Temple. Therefore, there was a collusion or fraud for the purpose of obtaining order from the Settlement Officer during the relevant point of time. The Temple Authorities filed an appeal before the Tribunal, who had passed an