E. SANGAIAH POOSARI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent, dated 05.12.2013. By the said order, the petitioner's request for issuance of patta in the name of Arulmigu Sangaiah Koil in respect of the land in old S.F.No.22/4A, measuring 33 cents, was rejected. By subsequent orders, dated 05.12.2013 and 30.12.2013, the second respondent himself has stated that the second respondent would be able to give patta in respect of three cents alone and not for the entire extent.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the second respondent reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order, but in paragraph No. 6 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that the petitioner has been performing pooja as poojari in the temple and one Selvam, S/o.Muthaiah has been protecting the temple as guard of that temple. The people belonging to Hindu Paraiyan caste has been worshiping the deity for several generations. Further there is an allegation that the petitioner has put up shops at the vacant land around the temple and he has been collecting rents from them and this activity has been objected to by the people belonging to that particular community. Further it is stated that the encroachments made by the petitioner has also been removed through appropriate forum by the said community people. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after collecting the entire details and ascertaining the entire facts, the petitioner's representation would be considered. It is further stated that the second respondent is empowered to issue patta only to an extent of three cents, after the implementation of SLR scheme.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent who shall take enquiry into the matter, after hearing the petitioner and other objectors, if any and thereafter, pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law. If the second respondent is satisfied with the claim made on behalf of the temple, in respect of entire extent, then the second respondent shall submit a report to the competent authority, who shall do the needful in the matter as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.