Arulmighu Thiruvateeswarar v. The Secretary To Govt Of T.N.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 14.09.2023 Delivered on: 08.11.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and C.M.P.No.4680 of 2022 W.A.No.660 of 2010 Arulmighu Thiruvateeswarar Devasthanam Triplicane, Madras - 5 Rep. by its Executive Officer .. Appellant / Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Land Administration Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The Settlement Tahasildar - II, Chengalpattu.

3.The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur.

4.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

1/40

5.S.P.Mohansundaram 6.Saroja 7.Palani Mudaliar K.

8.S.K.Karunakaran 9.S.K.Rajendran 10.C.S.Gopalakrishnan 11.K.N.Velusamy 12.P.Sivagami Ammal 13.R.Krishnaveni Ammal 14.K.Rajeswari 15.K.R.Selvaprakasam 16.A.Nagappan 17.T.C.Jayammal 18.M.Thangamani 19.V.R.Srinivasan 20.E.Devarajan 21.E.T.Nirmala 22.Prema Arthur 23.V.N.Kothandaraman 24.C.Padmavathi Ammal 25.R.Babu 26.R.Gopalakrishnan 27.K.Rajalakshmi 28.J.Bhoopathy 29.E.Nagabushana Rao 2/40

30.S.Kanagam 31.S.P.Dhananjayan 32.M.B.Thanigaivelu 33.Sajeeda 34.Nazima 35.Syed Mohammed R33 - Syed Abdul Kadir died substituted R 33 tot R35 vide order dated 27.03.2023 made in CMP.No.3786/2023 36.J.Suryanarayanan 37.V.Krishnakumar 38.M.V.Devaraj 39.Rupchand M.Shah 40.Mafibhan R.Shah 41.A.Krishnamurthy Rao 42.T.Arumuga Naicker 43.Syed Nooruddin 44.A.Arumuga Chettiar 45.E.Panchaksharam 46.C.D.Devasenan 47.A.Marimuthu 48.G.Ramiah 49.S.Jebathai Ammal 50.P.K.Sundram 51.S.P.Soundarapandian 52.Dhanarathina Sivakumar 3/40

53.T.Vijayammal 54.Moulvi. Mohamed Riyasathullah 55.S.Mohana 56.K.Chandrasekaran 57.A.Babulal Bokadia 58.Krishna Pillai 59.S.Visalakshi Ammal 60.C.K.Rajendran 61.Padmasini Shanmugam 62.K.Sridevi 63.R.Humara Begam 64.Radha Ammal 65.Tharani Kumar 66.Dilli Bai 67.M.Loganathan 68.G.Alamelu 69.B.Dhanalakshmi 70.Vittal Rao 71.E.V.Parthasarathy 72.Amsa 73.P.Murali 74.V.Santhanakrishnan 75.N.Karunanidhi 76.Jayabhai Benedict 77.V.Abraham 4/40

78.R.V.Baskaran 79.S.Govindarajan 80.Leela Ammal 81.S.Subbulakshmi 82.F.R.Shakir 83.M.Shanthi 84.L.Natarajan 85.J.Ramani 86.Shanthi Devichanden 87.V.Siva Raman 88.V.Tharanipathy 89.N.Chandra Kantha Bai 90.K.Premila 91.K.Bhavaneswari 92.Athiya Shakir 93.D.Ranganathan 94.Kamala Devi 95.P.E.Sundaramurthy 96.A.Anbazhagan 97.Janab Jailani Beevi 98.M.I.Waheeda Begam 99.M.I.Yasmin Sulthana 100.M.I.Feroza Sulthana 101.M.I.Masooda Begam 102.Dr.D.Saravana Muthu 5/40

103.S.Devaraja Chettiyar 104.R.Shanmugam 105.Manak Chand 106.G.Naresh Kumar 107.G.Shreepal Kumar 108.G.Prakash Chand 109.G.P.Jain 110.P.D.Sivaji 111.Kotteswaraiah 112.V.R.Subramanian 113.Ghulam Abid Ali Khan 114.G.Hari Babu alias G.H.Babu 115.G.H.Chandra 116.P.Kasthuri 117.S.Sathya Booshanam 118.V.C.Rao 119.T.S.Prakasam 120.Somasundaram 121.B.M.Narayanaswamy (died) 122.K.Mohanakumar 123.K.Sridhar 124.S.K.Meenakshi Sundaram 125.Selvi S.K.Sathyakumari M.Bharathi died R122 to 125 brought on record as LRs of deceased M.Bharathi vide order dated 27.03.2023, in 6/40

CMP.No.8573 of 2022 126.V.S.Singaravelu 127.B.Shanthi 128.R.V.Bhaskar 129.L.S.Lakshmi @ C.Lakshmi Prasad 130.S.P.Loganathan 131.M.Shyamala 126.V.S.Singaravelu 127.B.Shanthi 128.R.V.Bhaskar 129.L.S.Lakshmi @ C.Lakshmi 130.S.P.Loganathan 131.M.Shyamala 132.R.Vijayalakshmi 133.S.Vijayalakshmi 134.S.Rithika Meenakshi 135.P.Gnanasakthi 136.B.Premila 137.P.Sivaprakash 138.R.Suguna 139.Venkatraman Palani 140.P.Subramani 141.S.Amudha Rajendran 142.Balakumar Rajendran 143.Divya Kugan 7/40

144.G.Ganesan 145.G.Kandaswamy 146.G.Gangadharan 147.G.Ramesh Kumar 148.G.Jayashankar 149.V.Lakshmi 150.K.N.V.Sundareswaran 151.K.Geetha 152.Sahunkuthala 153.S.Sundar 154.Shanthi 155.Ravi Shankar 156.Revathi 157.N.Saraswathy 158.N.Uma Devi 159.M.Mahalakshmi Devi 160.S.Barathy Devi 161.M.Hemavathy 162.D.Sundararajan 163.D.Mohanraj 164.V.Chitralekha 165.B.Vijayalakshmi 166.M.Bakkiyalakshmi 167.B.Murali Krishnan 168.A.Saraswathi 8/40

169.A.Balasubramanian 170.A.Parimala 171.Syed Nizamuddin 172.Ayesha 173.Syed Moimuddin 174.Khousalya Bai 175.Kirubanamdhavari 176.Nagalakshmi 177.Harikrishnan 178.Kalavathi 179.Banumathi 180.Latha 181.Chandra 182.Selvaraj 183.Devaraj 184.Samraj 185.Anandabala 186.Asirvatham 187.Agastin 188.Roselin 189.P.S.Jagatheesan

190. Udayakumar 191.S.Meenakshi 192.P.Jeyalakshmi 193.S.Hemavathi 9/40

194.S.Hari Raman 195.K.Sivakumar 196.S.Soundarya 197.S.Shenbagam 198.K.Logambal 199.V.Thavamani 200.K.Muralidharan 201.Chandra 202.G.Krishna Kumar 203.R.Kanchana 204.C.R.Balasubramanian 205.C.R.Kamala Bai 206.K.Sakku Bai 207.V.Naindara 208.V.Parvathybai 209.V.Chandrakala 210.V.Kamala 211.V.Revathy 212.S.Lalitha 213.T.Nisha 214.Rajyalakshmi 215.S.Shalini 216.Samuel Ebenezer 217.Daniel Benedict 218.Angelin Abraham 10/40

219.Lalitha 220.Malini

221. V.Shanmugha Sundaram 222.Maragathavalli 223.Athiya Shakir 224.Nazreen Jehangir 225.Jawahar Molchane 226.Dhavakaval Chanden 227.Praveen Chanden 228.Rajesh Chanden 229.Dhilip Chanden 230.N.Malabai 231.K.Bhuvaneshwari 232.B.Umayaparvathi 233.D.Kasthuri 234.Devasena 235.D.Srinivasan 236.Satyapankajam 237.Arungalai Selvi 238.Deva Priya 239.R.Vigaasini 240.Manakchand 241.G.Nareshkumar 242.M.Vasantha 243.Shreepal 11/40

244.G.P.Jain 245.V.Vedavalli 246.S.Sugumaran 247.R.Akila 248.G.Samundeswari 249.J.Girija 250.P.Indirani 251.V.Kalaiselvi 252.Tamarai Selvi 253.Malarvizhi 254.Sivakumar 255.S.Velambal 256.R.Devika 257.Tamilselvi 258.S.Gopi 259.S.Kumar 260.S.Balasubramani 261.N.Leelavathi 262.M.Vasantha Lakshmi 263.N.Viswanathan 264.N.Venkatesh 265.Jaganath 266.Swaran 267.Sowmya 268.Ajay 12/40

269.Noorjehan Shakir 270.S.P.Dhanaraj 271.S.Mahendran 272.Dr.Meera Thinakaran 273.Ankit Navlakha 274.S.Valailyapathy 275.P.Sakunthala Ammal 276.T.S.Ganesan 277.S.Thanu Krishnan ..

Respondents /Respondents (*R269 to R279 are impleaded, vide order of court dated 14.09.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.19262/2023,18768, 18769, 18770, 18771, 18772, 18773, 18774 of 2017 and 8574 of 2022 in W.A.NO.660 of 2010 (DKKJ & PBBJ) Prayer:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the judgment in W.P.No.7649 of 2002, dated 04.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.Manuraj For Respondents : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvam Special Government Pleader for R1 to 4 : Mr.D.Kanagasundaram for R5, 6,8,13,18,19,21,24,25,27,30,31, 32 to 35, 37,38,41,45,48,53 to 55,57, 63 to 67,71 to 75,78 to 80,83,85,88, 91,95, 13/40

96, 98 to 101, 103 to 107,110,111, 115 to 117, 126, 129, 131.

: Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan for R135, 136, 137, 140 to 150, 152 to 155, 168 to 173, 181 to 187, 189, 191 to 194, 202, 212, 216, 221 to 224, 230, 231, 232, 237, 238 to 244, 246,250, 252, 254, 258.

: Mr.V.Ragavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Suresh Babu for R132 to 134 : Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Senior Counsel, for Mr.G.Baharadwaj for R122 to 125 : Mr.C.Jagadish for R261, 262, 264, 265 to 268 : Mr.Adithya Reddy for R39 & 40 : Mr.S.Sethuraman for R247 : No appearance for R12, 53, 92, 97, 108, 109,114, 127, 128 W.A.Nos.359 & 360 of 2013 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The Sub Registrar, Triplicane, Chennai-600 014.

.. Appellants /Respondents 14/40

V.

1.M.Latha ... Respondent / Petitioner 2.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Thiru Vakeeswarar Thirukoil, Thiruvateeswaranpettai, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005.

... 2nd Respondent (R2 impleaded as party respondent vide order of the Court, dated 18.06.2013 made in M.P.No.3/2013) Prayer:- Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the judgment in W.P.Nos.3057 and 3951 of 2012, dated 12.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

For Appellants : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvam Special Government Pleader COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI,J.) W.A.No.660 of 2010 is at the instance of the temple, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7649 of 2002. Writ Appeals, W.A.Nos.359 and 360 of 2013 are at the instance of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 28, who was the first respondent in W.P.Nos.3057 and 3951 of 2012. 15/40

2. All these Writ Appeals have been clubbed together in view of the common issue involved in all the three matters and were heard together.

3. W.P.No.7649 of 2002, in respect of which W.A.No.660 of 2012 has been filed was at the instance of the temple, seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the proceedings on the file of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 5, in R.Dis.K1/R.P12/95, dated 19.12.2001.

4. Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.3057 and 3951 of 2012 were filed against the Inspector General of Registration and the Sub Registrar, Triplicane, Chennai, where the writ petitioners therein sought for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Registration authorities to register pending documents which were presented for registration, without insisting on any No Objection Certificate from the H.R. & CE Department.

5. Insofar as W.P.No.7649 of 2002 is concerned, it was the case of the appellant that the appellant is a religious institution and as early as 01.11.1734 and 10.08.1787, by way of grants of Inam lands, forming part 16/40

of the then Pudupakkam village and now Royapettah, owned by the Nawab, were bestowed on the appellant after entering of the East India Company into Chennai. The grants being religious in nature and in favour of the petitioner, they came to be called as "Thiruvateeswarar Shothrium".

6. It is the specific case of the appellant that they did not have the cowls granted from the East India Company and also the grant, viz., title deed in their favour. However, the appellant produced extract of "Quit Rent Register". It is the further case of the appellant that after coming into existence of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion in to Ryothwari) Act, 1963, Tamil Nadu Act 30/1963, the settlement Tahsildar passed an order on 25.05.1971, granting patta to the respondents in the writ petition. The appellant did not appear for the enquiry, despite notice being served on them. The settlement Tahsildar proceeded to hold that the grant in favour of the appellant is only "Melvaram", which is a right to collect "Quit Rent" and not Kudivaram rights and held that the lands and buildings belong to the occupants, namely, the respondents. Further, some of the lands were classified as "Poramboke lands" in the said order of the Tahsildar and therefore, aggrieved persons filed a revision 17/40

before the Settlement Officer, Chengalpet and the same came to be allowed in favour of the aggrieved respondents. Thereafter, after a delay of 11 years, the appellant filed a revision challenging the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet, dated 25.05.1971 and the said revision came to be dismissed on 20.06.1982 as barred by limitation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the Settlement Officer in R.P.No.12 of 1988, on 06.09.1984 and the said revision was allowed in favour of the appellant on the ground that there has to be a presumption drawn under Section 44 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, in favour of the appellant and therefore, the appellant is entitled to get patta.

7. Challenging the said order in favour of the appellant, the respondents 5 to 126 preferred a revision before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - fourth respondent herein, who allowed the same and set aside the order passed in R.P.No.12 of 1988. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.7649 of 2002, seeking to set aside the order of Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, dated 19.10.2001.

18/40

8. On the side of the respondents, counter affidavits were filed stating that the appellant has not produced 2 cowls which alone would be in the nature of grant in favour of the appellant and no title deeds were also produced admittedly and therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the appellant. They have also contended that the pattas have been issued in the name of private parties, which clearly stipulates that payment of "Quit Rent", namely, land tax amount has to be paid and therefore, the appellant never held any Inam land in their favour and sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

9. The Writ Court, after considering the various submissions and contentions canvassed before it, held that the order of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, was proper and did not warrant any interference and ultimately, proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petition and accordingly, dismissed the Petition.

10. Aggrieved by the said order of the Writ Court, the appellant 19/40

has filed the Writ Appeal No.

the Writ Court failed to see that the land acquisition proceedings were only in favour of the appellant alone; the Writ Court erred in holding that the respondents had successfully dispelled the presumption under Section 44 of the Act; the Writ Court ought not to have interfered with the finding of the fact, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. Urging the above grounds, amongst several other grounds, the unsuccessful writ petitioner prays for the order of the Writ Court being set aside.

12. Insofar as the W.P.Nos.3750 and 3759 of 2012, the case of the writ petitioner was that the writ petitioners had purchased undivided share of lands for construction of flat and after paying necessary registration fee and stamp duty, sale deeds were presented for registration. The Sub Registrar, Triplicane, who is the second respondent in the writ petition, kept them as pending documents and insisted on production of a No Objection Certificate from the HR & CE Department. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Writ Petitions, seeking issuance of Writs of Mandamus, citing Section 22-A of the Registration Act as it then stood had 21/40

been struck down. Therefore, it was urged by the writ petitioners therein that there was no justification to refuse registration as per G.O.(Ms) No.150, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 22.09.2000, when it was also challenged before this Court and in view of Section 22(A) having struck down, it was held that the notification issued thereunder was also illegal and invalid. It is also stated by the writ petitioners that pursuant to an order in W.P.No.7237 of 2006, the Government has also withdrawn the notification itself. Therefore, according to the writ petitioners therein, they were entitled to register the sale deeds presented and the authorities could not insist on a No Objection Certificate from the HR and CE Department. The Writ Court had referred to an earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.

29896 of 2011, where similar Mandamus was sought for and the said writ petition was allowed in line with the order in the earlier Writ Petition. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registration Department to register the pending documents, without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the HR and CE Department.

13. Aggrieved by this common order in W.P.Nos.3057 and 3951 of 2013, Writ Appeals in W.A.No.359 and 360 of 2013 have been filed by 22/40

the Registration Department, who were the respondents in both the Writ Petitions. The grounds of challenge in these Writ Appeals, W.A.Nos.359 and 360 of 2013 are that the Writ Court failed to see that the lands belonging to the temple, which were coming within the purview of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Department and Section 34 (1) of the said Act. There was a clear prohibition of any sale, exchange or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of immovable property either belonging to or given or endowed for the purposes of any religious institution and that any contravention to the said provision would only be null and void, unless and until if the same was sanctioned by the Commissioner functioning under the HR and CE Department; the Writ Court failed to notice that Act 2 of 2009 was never stayed by this Court and in W.P.Nos.

9030 to 9033 of 2009, only Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act had been stayed; the Writ Court failed to consider that identical issues were referred to the Full Bench of this Court and the same was pending at that time; the Writ Court failed to see that under Section 71 of the Registration Act, the registering authority has power to refuse Registration, when there was "sufficient cause".

orders passed in Writ Petition Nos.3057 and 3951 of 2012, dated 12.03.2012, to be set aside.

14. We have heard the learned counsel on either side. We have paid anxious and careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the parties and we have also perused the material records placed before us by way of typed sets. We have also carefully gone through the impugned order in all the three Writ Petitions.

15. If the contentions and issues in Writ Appeal No.660 of 2010 are decided first, then automatically, the decision in the other two Writ Appeals, namely, W.A.Nos.359 and 360 of 2013 would follow. Therefore we take up W.A.No.660 of 2010 first.

W.A.No.660 of 2010:

16. The case of the appellant is that as early as on 25.05.1971, the Settlement Tahsildar, passed an order under the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, granting pattas to the contesting respondents. It is an admitted position that despite being served with notice, the appellant did not participate in the proceedings before the Settlement Thasildar. The 24/40

Settlement Tahsildar examined as many as 126 witnesses and documents submitted before it and also after field staff inspected the properties, proceeded to grant patta. The specific findings of the Settlement Thasildar were that both the land and building belong to the occupants and it was only Melwaram, that is land revenue tax that was collected from them and not rent. Though the appellant woke up late and sought to challenge the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, after a long delay of 11 years, the appellant was unsuccessful as the revision was dismissed as being barred by the law of limitation. However, Revision against the said rejection of the revision filed by the appellant came to be allowed in R.P.No.12 /1988, as against the reversing finding rendered in R.P.No.

12 of 1988, the respondents preferred a revision before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Acquisition and a detailed order came to be passed on 19.12.2001, setting aside the order in R.P.No.12 of 1988 and restoring the order of the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of the respondents. It is aggrieved by the said order that the temple chose to approach this Court and sought for a Writ of Certiorari.

17. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.N.R.Elango, appearing for 25/40

the appellant would revolve his submissions mainly on the following grounds, namely, (i) Section 44 of the HR and CE Act and its scope and legal effect have not been properly addressed by the Writ Court; (ii) the Writ Court failed to see that the burden was only on the respondents to prove that the grant in their favour was both Warams, namely, Melwaram as well as Kudiwaram and no satisfactory evidence was let in by the respondents (iii) the expression "Quit Rent" has been misconstrued by the Writ Court and the Special Commissioner did not even undertake a proper exercise in examining the evidence produced by the individual revision petitioners, namely, the respondents herein and dispose of the matter, namely, a batch of 120 odd cases, merely referring to the documents produced only by some of them, which the Writ Court has failed to take note of.

18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellant has slept over its right from the very beginning and despite having been given an opportunity before the Settlement Tahsildar in 1971, they did not avail of the same and after examining 126 witnesses, the Settlement Tahsildar passed a considered order in favour of 26/40

the respondents. The said order was allowed to become final until 11 years, thereafter, when a revision was filed by the appellant, which was rightly dismissed as time barred. Further, the revision was also filed belated, after lapse of 3 years, but, unfortunately, the delay was condoned and the revision came to be allowed on erroneous grounds. However, on further revision at the instance of the respondents, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, rightly set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and the Writ Court has also elaborately considered all the grounds projected by the appellant and found that there was no warrant to interfere with the order of the Special Commissioner and thereby, dismissed the Writ Petition. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

19. Section 44 of the Act 30 of 1963, is extracted as follows: "44.Presumption in the case of service inam.- In proceedings under this Act relating to any inam granted for the benefit of any religious, educational or charitable institution or granted to any individual for rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution or for the purpose of rendering any other service, it shall 27/40

be presumed, unless the contrary is proved that the inam consists not merely of a grant of the melvaram in the land but also the kudivaram therein."

20. A reading of the above provision placed, a clear rebuttable presumption, inspection any religious educational or charitable institution that the Inam in its favour shall consist of not only a ground of "Melwaram" in the land, but, also "Kudiwaram" rights. The Writ Court has rightly interpreted the said Section and held that it is the presumption available to the appellant under Section 44 was a presumption of fact and was rebuttable at the instance of the respondent, who sought for patta. However, the Writ Court at paragraph No.21 has held as follows: "........

21. The presumption under Section 44 of Act 30 of 1963 is a presumption of fact. In other words, the presumption is one rebuttable presumption at the instance of a party who seeks patta under the Act. In the present case on hand, the contesting respondents have clearly dispelled the presumption as observed by the 4th respondent and that is the reason why the revision filed by them has been allowed based upon the documents which are very ancient in nature." 28/40

21. We have perused the order of the fourth respondent, namely, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai. In the said order of the fourth respondent, though the fourth respondent has discussed the scope of Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Act 30/1963 and also the entitlement under Section 8 of the Act, the fourth respondent has held at paragraph Nos.21 & 22 of which the order is as follows:

" 21. In the arguments put forth by learned counsel for Thiru. M.Narayanaswamy and Thiru. Somasundaram among other points a mention was made of a eligibility of patta under Section 8 of the Act for the lands in R.S.No.1282/2 and 1213/6 of Pudupakkam Village. Perusal of the file of Settlement Tahsildar relating to the proceedings shows that the Tahsildar has considered documentary evidences like Certificate issued by the Collector of Madras which mentions about the existence of the buildings in the lands. The ownership of the lands has been traced from 1734 onwards. There is evidence about payment of "Quit Rent" to the temple in this case also. Hence this is also a case similar to the case of Revision petitioners discussed above. Therefore, the orders of the 29/40

Settlement Tahsildar is found to be correct.

22. As discussed above there is enough evidence in this case to prove the Kudiwaram rights of the occupants and hence the presumption under Section 44 is clearly dislodged. The Settlement Tahsildar issued patta in his proceedings No.GRSR No.37/MSE/Act 30/63, dated 25.05.1971 to 252 persons after verifying documents and field inspection which is in order. Hence the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, in his proceedings R.P.No.12/88, dated 10.08.1995 is hereby set aside and the orders passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, in GRSR No.37/MSE/Act 30/63, dated 25.05.1971 is confirmed."

22. Unfortunately, on an entire reading of the order of the fourth respondent, it is seen that though as many as 126 persons claimed pattas, attacking the presumption in favour of the appellant, the fourth respondent has not discussed any of the documents filed on behalf of the 126 revision petitioners before it. On the contrary, referring to, merely one or two documents, the fourth respondent has chosen to treat all the 126 cases on the same footing, without adverting to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The said approach of the fourth respondent is beyond 30/40

comprehension. The grant of patta to an individual would depend on his individual right and entitlement to the same. More so, in that instant case, where there is already a presumption in favour of the appellant, admittedly, the burden is heavier on the persons claiming patta, who have to successfully rebut presumption in favour of the appellant. That being the position, the manner in which, the fourth respondent has gone about deciding the 126 cases cannot be countenanced. Though it is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that all 126 revision petitioners before the fourth respondent had produced their respective documents under which they were claiming right and clearly rebutting the presumption in favour of the appellant, the same has not been referred to in the order and just because there is no mention about the individual documents, the order of the fourth respondent cannot be set aside, since the respondents have produced all materials before the fourth respondent.

23. Insofar as the 119th respondent in the writ petition, who is the 121th respondent in the Writ Appeal, and pending the above writ appeal, he has passed away and his legal heirs have been substituted as respondents 261 to 268. It is contended by some of his legal heirs, namely, respondents 31/40

261, 262 and 264 that in respect of the said deceased, M.Narayanasamy's property, the temple had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.2685 of 1974 and subsequent to issues being framed in the suit, the appellant chose to withdraw the suit on 01.04.1976, thereby, giving up all the claims against the deceased M.Narayanaswamy. It is also brought to our notice that the Government has also passed G.O.(Ms).No.1103, dated 21.05.1979, granting exemption to M/s.Wood Lands Hotel, in which, the said Mr.M.Narayanasamy was one of the partners.

24. The learned counsel for the respondents 261, 262, 264 and 265 to 268, Mr.C.Jegathish would contend that the appellant can have no quarrel with regard to their right. However, we find from the grounds raises in writ petition that a specific ground has been raised insofar as the said 121st respondent, namely, Mr.M.Narayanasamy, viz., ground No.17, where it is contended that the Commissioner erred in holding that building existed on the date of notification that there was no evidence forthcoming in that regard and therefore, being vacant land on the date of notification, the Commissioner erred in applying Section 13 instead of considering the Claim under Section 8 of the Act 30/1963. Moreover, all the legal heirs are 32/40

not before us and it is only three of them, who contend that Mr.M.Narayanasamy's pattas cannot be recalled or cancelled.

25. Be that as it may, we have already found that the approach of the fourth respondent was highly unsatisfactory. Section 8 of the Act 30/1963 deals with the grant of Ryotwari patta. Section 8(2) specifically deals with Inams granted for support or maintenance of a religious institution or for purpose of a Charity or service or connected therewith or any religious charity. Before becoming entitled to grant of Ryotwari patta under Section 8, the person, seeking such patta, who has established that the land was transferred by resale and that the transferee or heir, assignee legal representative or person deriving the rights through him, have been in exclusive possession of the land for continuous period of 60 years immediately before first of April, 1960 or for a continuous period of 12 years immediately before first of April 1960. These conditions have to be satisfied by the respondents.

26. It is specifically contended by the appellant that the 33/40

respondents have not been able to show that there has been any transfer of interest and the fourth respondent has not adverted to the fact that there has been no compliance of the provisions of the Act 30/1963. Unfortunately, the Writ Court has also accepted the case of the respondents that they have clearly proved their entitlement to get patta under Section 30/1963 of the Act, as they had put up construction a long time ago. The fourth respondent has also not discussed the provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 8 and 13 and the Act 30/1963 in a proper perspective and have clubbed more than 100 cases together and decided the issue without independently applying the facts of each case of the respondents and see whether the case falls under Section 13 or under Section 8 and if so whether they are entitled to grant of patta.

Only if such a process is adopted, the presumption under Section 44 of the Act in favour of the appellant's can be dislodged.

respondents.

27. It is also brought to our notice that many of the original respondents have passed away and their legal heirs are in possession of the respective properties.

28. In view of the above discussions, we find that the order of the fourth respondent impugned in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. The Writ Appeal in W.A.No.660 of 2010 stands allowed, by remitting the matter back to the fourth respondent, namely, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, with a direction to fix a date for enquiry and consider all the cases individually /independently and decide the claims of the respondents, after hearing the appellant temple in accordance with law. Wherever the original owners, who are respondents in the writ petitions are not alive, the fourth respondent shall issue notices to the legal heirs, who would be entitled to represent the estate of such deceased respondents.

29. The fourth respondent shall also consider the documents that 35/40

are said to have been filed by the respondents along with the revision petitions while challenging the order of the Settlement Officer granting patta in the name of the appellant temple. The parties shall be entitled to adduce further oral and documentary evidence before the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent shall consider on merits, each of the petitions individually and shall ensure that the revisions are disposed of as expeditiously and not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. W.A.Nos.359 and 360 of 2013

30. These two Writ Appeals will be subject to the come out of the proceedings before the fourth respondent. In the event of the fourth respondent holding that the respondents in the Writ Appeals, are entitled to grant of patta, then the order in W.P.Nos.3057 and 3951 of 2012 shall be complied with by the appellants in these two writ appeals, namely, Registration Authorities.

31. However, in the event of the fourth respondent holding that the appellant is entitled to patta, the writ appeals filed by the Registration Department, would automatically stand allowed and the respondents would 36/40

not be entitled to any indulgence directing the registration of their respective sale deeds, without a No objection Certificate from the HR & CE Department.

32. The Writ Appeals W.A.Nos.359 and 360 of 2013 stand disposed of and W.A.No.660 of 2010 stands allowed by remitting the matter to the fourth respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, to decide each of the respondent's case individually, after giving an opportunity to the appellant temple and also hearing both the appellant as well as the respondents concerned and pass orders in accordance with law. We make it clear that the private respondents shall satisfy the fourth respondent for their entitlement for grant of patta strictly in accordance with the Act No.30 of 1963 without any deviation. In case those revisions are liable to be set aside, the authorities concerned shall take necessary further course of action in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act and Rules.

33. In fine, with the directions issued in paragraph Nos.28 & 29 herein above W.A.No.660 of 2010 is allowed and in line with the 37/40

discussion in paragraph Nos. 30 & 31, W.A.Nos.359 and 360 of 2013 are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

(D.K.K.J.) & (P.B.B.J) 08.11.2023 Internet : Yes Index:Yes/No Ls/kpr 38/40

To 1.The Secretary Land Administration Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The Settlement Tahsildar - II, Chengalpattu.

3.The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur.

4.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 5.

39/40

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J., and P.B.BALAJI,J Ls/kpr Pre-delivery judgment in 08.11.2023 40/40