2025:MHC:1703 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P.(MD) Nos.10999, 11001 to 11008, 11148 to 11153, 10715 and 14046 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.9618 to 9622, 9624, 2626 to 9633, 9636, 9637, 9640, 9642, 9645, 9646, 9648, 9652, 9653, 9656, 9661, 9663, 9665, 9733, 9734, 9736, 9737, 9738, 9742, 9440 and 11879 of 2023 W.P.(MD)No.10999 of 2023 K.Jegatheesan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai North, Vellaripatti, Madurai District.

4.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, East Taluk, Madurai District.

5.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kalamega Perumal Temple, Thirumohoor, Madurai. ... 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 pertaining to the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.44/2018/J5, dated 31.03.2023 and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to mutate the patta in favour of the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.S.Manohar for R5 COMMON ORDER These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District allowing the application filed by the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kalamega Perumal Temple, seeking cancellation of patta issued in the name of the petitioners under UDR scheme and restoration of patta in the name of Arulmigu Kalamega Perumal Temple.

2. According to the petitioners, the subject properties with total extent of 1 acre 17 cents situated in S.No.27/6, Thirumohoor Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District has been developed in the name of P.K.Residency and the petitioners purchased the plots developed in the said land and constructed houses and have been residing thereon. It is stated by the petitioners that ryotwari patta has been issued in favour of vendors of petitioners under the “Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 [Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963]” (hereinafter referred to as “Act 30 of 1963”) and the impugned order has been passed without noticing the right available to the petitioners' vendors. It is stated by the petitioners that the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District has no jurisdiction to cancel the patta issued by the Settlement Officer under the provisions of Act 30 of 1963 and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the question of jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment in Sennimalai Gounder (Died) and others Vs Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and others reported in (2019) 5 MLJ 279.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Arulmigu Kalamega Perumal Temple would submit that the properties in question were Inam lands and the same were granted to the benefits of the temple for rendering Meikaval service in the temple. It is stated that originally six persons viz., Perumal, Karuppaiah, Raman, Murugan, Lakshmanan and Mookayee were granted settlement patta under Section 8(2)(ii) r/w Section 8(5) r/w Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for the temple that the service holders are entitled to patta subject to the condition that they must continue to do service and they have no right to alienate the property. It is his submission that in the case on hand, the service holders, who were granted patta under the Act 30 of 1963, violating the statutory condition, sold the properties to the third parties and the properties were developed and sold to the petitioners and therefore, the same is invalid. It is also