IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.06.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P.No.8859 of 2022 K.Malarvizhi ... Petitioner versus

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Perumal Koil Complex, Tirupur Bazaar (Near Old Bus Stand), Tirupur - 641 604.

3.The Sub-Registrar, Thottipalayam Sub-Registrar Office, Integrated Registration Office Complex, Nerupperichal, Tiruppur - 641 602. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to return check slip issued by the third respondent in RFL/Thottipalayam/27/2022 dated 07.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to register the settlement deed, dated 03.03.2022 executed by the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Navaneethakrishnan For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate (HR&CE)

For Respondent No.3 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Challenge has been made to the refusal slip issued by the third respondent refusing to register the settlement deed on the ground that the HR&CE Department has issued a letter stating that the property belongs to the temple.

2. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that the patta proceedings issued under Act 30 of 1963 has reached finality and C.M.A.No.360 of 1972 filed against the Settlement Tahsildar has been disposed of and the patta has been granted in favour of the occupier. When the order has reached finality, merely on the basis of the letter, the registering authorities cannot refuse to register the document.

3. The learned Government Advocate (HR&CE) for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, as far as C.M.A. order of the Tribunal is concerned, it is only an ex parte order and that the temple authorities are taking steps to retrieve the property. According to them, it is a temple property. Hence, he opposed the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (HR&CE) for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5. As rightly stated that the proceedings were initiated in the year

1968 and the order has reached finality in C.M.A.No.360 of 1972 before the Minor Inams (Tribunal), Coimbatore. Whether that order is right or not cannot be tested at this stage. Even assuming that only ex parte order has been passed that cannot be a ground to hold that order is not valid in law unless same is challenged in the manner known to law.

6. A counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 also indicates that they came to know about the issuance of patta in the year 2012. Probably, it has prompted the authorities to issue a letter to the registering authority. However, no steps have been taken so far to challenge that order. Therefore, once the Tribunal constituted under the Special Act has issued a patta, at this stage, the temple cannot claim a title unless the order of the Tribunal is set aside by the competent Court. Therefore, from the admitted facts, as on today, the writ petitioner has a better title. Therefore, merely on the basis of the letter issued by the authorities, the registering authority cannot refuse to register the document.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the HR & CE Department, on instructions, submitted that though patta had been issued to the individual, the same had been issued without proper enquiry. Now the temple is taking steps to retrieve the property from the third parties.

8. It is relevant to note that the very reply and the instructions submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the HR & CE Department indicates that