Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56085
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Soumthar, J
Bala Subramaniyan – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.14721 of 2023|W.P.(MD)No.17003 of 2024|W.M.P.(MD)No.12422 of 2023|W.M.P.(MD)No.14645 of 2024|O.S.No.139 of 1975|A.S.No.9 of 1978
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs.B.Bhuvaneshwari, Ms.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Gangatharan, Govt. Advocate for R1 & R2, Mr.M.Anbarasan for R3, Mr.P.Mahendran for R3
The court upheld that properties classified as service inam belong to the temple, affirming that individual rights cease if services are not rendered, regardless of past civil judgments without temple's participation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Challenge to order restoring revenue records to temple and removing petitioners' names - Petitioner claims title over property purchased; argues prior civil court judgment negated temple's title - Authorities favored historical classification as service inam lands - Court confirmed that service holders lose rights upon ceasing service; previous adverse civil court findings were vacated. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 10, 14)
(B) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Writ courts are not to adjudicate title disputes; parties retain the right to pursue claims in civil courts. (Paras 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge order removing them from UDR records; prior suit declared property not belonging to temple, but respondents argue land is service inam afforded to temple poojaris. Court finds temple's title reinstated is warranted by historical documents.
Findings of Court:
Writs dismissed; inclusion of individual names deemed an error, affirming temple’s rights over properties.
Issues: The entitlement of petitioners in light of past adverse civil rulings and the nature of the land as service inam.
Ratio Decidendi: Temple retains rights over service inam lands as long as services are rendered, findings vacated do not impact temple's claims as it wasn't a party in the prior litigation.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed, with petitioners allowed to pursue title claims in civil court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to revenue records and property claims. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on property ownership and temple title. (Para 5) |
| 3. historical ownership and classification of property. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. recognition of service inam rights and legal title. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's dismissal with liberty to dispute title. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent removing the names of the Writ Petitioners from the UDR records and directing restoration of revenue records in the name of the temple viz., “Arulmighu Thadiyarudaiya Ayyanar Temple” (herein after referred to as “Ayyanar Temple”) along with a prefix “Hindu Religious and Charitable Department”.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
3. According to the petitioners, the subject properties were originally belonged to Velar family and their predecessors in interest. The petitioners purchased the property from descendants of Velar family by way of registered documents and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also stated that earlier the petitioners' predecessors in interest Sethu Velar and another filed a civil suit for bare injunction against the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board appointed trustee of the Ayyanar Temple in O.S.No.139 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi and the said suit was decreed with a specific finding that the suit property did not belong to the Ayyanar Temple. In these circumstances, the petitioners received notice from the first respondent to show cause why the pattas issued in their favour should not be cancelled. The petitioners appeared before the first respondent and submitted that the subject properties were their personal properties and the Ayyanar Temple could not make any claim over the same. The first respondent overlooked the objections raised by the petitioners and ordered deletion of petitioners' name from the UDR records and ordered restoration of Ayyanar Temple's name in the revenue records with a prefix “Hindu Religious and Charitable Department”.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the title of the Ayyanar Temple was negatived by the civil Court in O.S.No.139 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi and the same was not at all considered by the first respondent while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are claiming right over the subject property under various registered documents and the Ayyanar Temple has no title document in their favour and in such circumstances, the first respondent committed a serious error in giving weightage to the revenue documents in the name of the Ayyanar Temple.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.17003 of 2024 would submit that the subject lands were service inam lands and the same were given to the Poojaris of the Ayyanar temple viz., Somu Velar family. It is stated that the petitioners, who illegally purchased the property from the descendants of Velar family, are not entitled to claim any exclusive right over the service inam lands and therefore, the first respondent was justified in passing the impugned order restoring the revenue records in the name of the Ayyanar Temple by treating the entry in favour of individual persons as an error that had crept in during UDR updation.
6. A perusal of the impugned order and the documents filed in the typed set of papers would indicate that the subject properties in S.No.49 with an extent of 27 acres 6 cents was originally classified as “Poojai Ayyanar Kovil” in the settlement A register. A close scrutiny of old Sett
