BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P(MD)No.19200 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.17529 of 2024 S.Siranjeevi Rathinakumar ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhom High Road, Chennai-28.

2.The District Registrar, Thenkasi District, Thenkasi.

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sankarankovil, Thenkasi District.

4.The Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sankaranarayanan Temple, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 3^rd respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.208/Sa.Pa/2022, dated 05.07.2022 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 3^rd respondent to register the sale deed in respect of the properties in Survey Nos.557/1, 557/2, 57/3, 557/4, 557/5, 557/6, 557/2, 557/8, 557/2, 557/9, 557/10, 557/12, 557/14, 557/2, 557/15 and 557/39 to the total extent of 2.48.5 Hectares, which is covered under patta Nos.1941, 2144, 2177, 2099.

For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Balameenakshi For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, Standing Counsel

ORDER

According to the petitioner, the properties in Survey Nos.557/1, 557/2, 557/3, 557/4, 557/5, 557/6, 557/2, 557/8, 557/2, 557/9, 557/10, 557/12, 557/14, 557/2, 557/15 and 557/39 to the total extent of 2.48.5 Hectares, situated at Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District, belonged to the petitioner. He decided to sell some portion of the properties in question in favour of one Rajapandiyan and presented the sale deed dated 15.02.2022 for registration. However, the same was refused to be registered by the 3^rd respondent vide refusal check slip dated 15.02.2022, citing the objection given by the 4^th respondent. When the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5456 of 2022, this Court, while disposing the Writ Petition, remitted the matter back to the 3^rd respondent to conduct preliminary enquiry in this regard. Pursuant to the said directions given by this Court, the 3^rd respondent has passed an order dated 05.07.2022, holding that the petitioner is not a title holder. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that patta proceedings had been initiated under Act 30 of 1963 and vide order dated 30.04.1972, ryotwari patta had been issued in favour of the predecessors of the petitioner in respect of the properties in question and that order has been reached finality, which has not been challenged. Ever since the date of patta, the predecessor in title enjoyed the properties in question and several transaction had also taken place. Now, by giving mere objection before the registering authority, the Temple cannot prevent the transaction. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent based on the objection of the 4^th respondent is liable to be quashed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would submit that the subject properties are service inams and patta has been granted only under Section 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) r/w Section 21 of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Act 30 of 1963) and if the service is not rendered by the pattadharars, they do not have any right either to enjoy the lands or to alienate the same and the Temple can resume the lands at any time as per Section 41 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter, referred to as HR & CE Act'). That apart, Section 38 of Act 30 of 1963 also makes such transaction as void. Hence, he opposed this Writ Petition.

4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5.At the outset, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is passed as