P RAJARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the trustees of Marundeeswarar Temple, Thiruvanmiyur challenging G.O.Ms.No.828 dated 25.8.1995. The matter was posted for final hearing. No one appeared for the petitioners. The 2nd petitioner is no more. However, in the Writ Petition, the 4th respondent was the Executive Officer of Marundeeswarar Devasthanam. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that since the interest of the Temple was directly affected by the impugned order notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners are not present, he may permitted to state the case of the Temple and show how the impugned order prejudiced the interest of the Temple. Bearing in mind that the Courts exercise a parens patria control over religious and charitable institution & trusts, the matter was heard.

(2.) The impugned order relates to issuance of patta in respect of survey number 126/10 to one Thiru N.Kumar at the instance of one Dr. Hari Ramesh. Mr. N. Kumar has been made as the third respondent in this Writ Petition. No one has appeared on behalf of N. Kumar today. The property bearing survey number 126/10 was originally included in survey No.126/2. A lease was granted in respect of the property in favour of one Sabapathi Chettiar in 1958 who in turn sub leased the property to seven others. There were several proceedings before the Settlement Authorities and on 14.2.1983 three revisions were disposed of by a common order. One revision was filed by one Kadirvelu Chettiar, who claimed he was entitled to the property by virtue of a document No.2173/43 dated 22.10.1943. The other revision was filed by the seven sub tenants inducted by Sabapathi Chettiar. The third revision was filed by the 4th respondent herein. All the revisions were dismissed but some of the findings are relevant. The Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, observed from the records that ground rent patta had been granted to the 4th respondent for survey No.126/10. He rejected the claim of Kadirvelu Chettiar on the ground that the land belong to the 4th respondent as it is a private land even before 1941. Therefore, Kadirvelu Chettiar cannot derive any right from the document of the year 1943. The Officer also found that there was enough evidence to show that survey No.126/10 continued to be the 4th respondent's property even after 1943. It was observed that the title of the Devasthanam to this survey number was admitted by Sabapathi Chettiar from whom Kadirvelu Chettiar traced his title. It is seen from the records that a suit was filed by the wife of Sabapathi Chettiar in respect of a path way through survey No.126/10. The trial Court viz., the Second Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee decreed the suit. Against that, appeals were filed, which will be dealt with later.

(3.) In any event, the revisions were dismissed leaving it open to the persons who own houses to apply to the Government for grant of ground rent patta. According to the Officer, the land had vested in the Government as per Act 26 of 1948. Against this, the parties went before the Director of Survey and Settlement, who confirmed the above order. Two appeals were filed against the decree of the Second Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee; one by the sub lessee and other by the plaintiff herself. In both these appeals, the 4th respondent was a party. It is important to note that the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee has referred to the 4th respondent as owner of the property. However, the appeals were allowed in part declaring an easementary right in the path way. These appeals were disposed of in the year 1976. On 11.2.1994, the Collector of Chennai addressed a letter to the 4th respondent herein referring to G.O. Ms. No.837/Revenue dated 2.12.1993, and the request of one, Dr. Hari Ramesh for grant of patta. The 4th respondent called for an enquiry with the required documents. On 22.2.1994, the 4th respondent had sent a reply stating that this land belongs to the Temple and the interest of the Temple should be safeguarded. Again on 11.3.1994, the Collector issues a letter seeking clarification from the Temple whether any Temple building has been put up in survey No.126/10. To this, a reply is given on 22.3.1994 stating that the Temple's right must be protected and that the Collector will "desist from issuing patta to the third parties". In August 1994, the 4th respondent filed C.S. No.1028 of 1994 in which the first respondent herein is the defendant, the second respondent is the 4th defendant and Dr. Hari Ramesh, at whose instance the impugned order was passed issuing the patta to the third respondent herein, was shown as the 13th defendant. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, The Director of Survey and Settlement and the sub tenants are all parties in this suit. It appears that initially only notice was ordered and exparte interim injunction was not granted. But the respondents 1 & 2 cannot plead that they had no knowledge of the proceedings. Two interim applications were sought for; one was to prevent alienation and the other was to prevent grant of patta. Subsequently, This Court passed an order of 'Status quo'. On 21.11.1995, the Collector of Madras pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.828 dated 25.8.1995, which is impugned herein assigned the land to Thiru. N. Kumar, having come to the conclusion that the Temple "cannot be able to sustain their claim for declaration in their favour and for injunction". On 7.1.1998, an order was passed in WMP Nos.20053, 20054 and 4036 of 1995 in W.P. No.17786 of 1995 which had been filed for quashing the above order. The above writ miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioners herein and the original applications filed in C.S. No.1028 of 1994 were heard together. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that prima facie a case has been made out by the Temple. This order is dated 7.1.1998 and reads this: