Palani v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and CMP (MD) No.13335 of 2025

1. Palani

2. Raman

3. Duraisamy ... Appellants Vs.

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

3. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

1/6

4. The Tahsildar, Natham, Dindigul District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent Appeal, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.14332 of 2023 dated 10.03.2025. For Appellants : Mr.S.Muthupandi For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court. The writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Dindigul, dated 27.03.2023, holding that the subject property described in the writ proceeding is a temple property of Samuthirapatti Vellakalamman Temple. The Writ Court elaborately considered the issues and made a finding that the District Revenue Officer on coming to know of the mutation of revenue records in the individual names of the sons of the Hereditary Trustee, Manjammal 2/6

with the writ appellants, made an application to the second respondent for cancelling the patta and to restore the patta in the name of the temple. Further, an inquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar, who in turn, filed a report. The Deputy Tahsildar, Natham, also conducted a detailed inquiry and forwarded his report. The contentions of the appellants, HR and CE department along with the report of the Deputy Tahsildar were considered by the District Revenue Officer and the authorities found that the patta was wrongly mutated in the name of the appellants and the appellants also have not produced any documents to establish that it is a patta land. Even before the settlement proceedings, the document shows that the land belongs to Temple. It was a service inam originally and the name of the beneficiaries were mutated in the records which became a wrong entry and paved way for instituting legal proceedings by the appellant.

3. A perusal of the order passed by the District Revenue Officer would reveal that even before settlement proceedings, the subject property stood in the name of the temple and even during the course of inquiry, the appellants could not be able to produce any document to establish that it is a patta land. Thus they have found that the land belongs to the temple and accordingly, passed an order to 3/6

mutate the revenue records in the name of the temple. The Writ Court also considered these issues and dismissed the writ petition, which, in the opinion of this Court is in consonance with the legal position and thus, the writ appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(S.M.S., J.) & (G.A.M., J.) 18.08.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No PKN 4/6

To

1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindigul.

3. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

4. The Tahsildar, Natham, Dindigul District.

5/6

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND G.ARUL MURUGAN , J.

PKN 18.08.2025 6/6