A successor-in-title cannot challenge settlement proceedings or claim ownership rights over lands where their predecessor had explicitly admitted the title of the endowment/temple and consented to the issuance of title records in favor of such endowment during the original statutory settlement process.

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31515 of 2015.

For Appellant(s) : Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar

for Mr.S.P.Meenakshi Sundharam

For Respondent(s) : Mr.K.Kumaran

Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

This intra-Court appeal assails the order of the writ Court dated 04.09.2025 made in W.P.No.31515 of 2015, whereby the challenge to the order of the first respondent came to be rejected.

2.Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the writ petition was listed for final hearing after a long time which was not noticed and in the absence of the counsel, the writ petition was heard and dismissed without adverting to the merits of the case and therefore, sought for a remand to allow the appellants to agitate their grievance before the writ Court.

3.Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that even in the enquiry before the first respondent, notice was not properly served and sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the appellants’ mother and when the order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside on that sole ground, still, the writ petition has been dismissed without considering the violation of principles of natural justice. By the impugned order of the first respondent, the name has been directed to be removed from patta No.732, without affording proper opportunity which is arbitrary and unsustainable.

4.Per contra, Mr.K.Kumaran, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submitted that sufficient opportunities have been afforded to the appellants’ mother, and the statement and claim made was considered in detail by the first respondent, only pursuant to which, the claim came to be rejected by a detailed speaking order. Further, when the patta was issued under the settlement proceedings in favour of the temple based on the admission of the appellants’ grandfather, the appellants cannot be allowed to claim a right which even their grandfather was not possessing. Only on consideration of these aspects, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which needs no interference.

5.Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record.

6.The appellants’ mother made a claim over the lands measuring 3.36 acres and 0.47 acres in S.F.Nos.180 and 220/2, respectively, at Kothukondapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. According to the appellants’ mother, she and her predecessor-in-title are the lawful owners and the lands were minor inam lands covered under T.D.No.487 and during the ryotwari settlement under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 30 of 1963”), these lands were taken up for settlement. However, during the settlement proceedings, the patta was wrongly allowed in favour of Arulmigu Venkataramanasami Koil.

7.The claim was considered by the first respondent. Notices were issued to the appellants’ mother for hearing and in spite of the service being completed, the appellants’ mother did not choose to appear for the enquiry. The Executive Officer of the temple participated in the enquiry and submitted all the relevant records. The claim along with the detailed statements submitted by the appellants’ mother and the report of the second respondent along with the documents produced by the temple were considered by the first respondent.

8.From the records, it is to be noted that the properties were originally devadayam minor inam lands covered under T.D.No.487. The lands were taken over by the Government under the prov