ARULMIGU PARAVAI ANNAM KATHARULIYA SWAMY DEITY Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIRUDHUNAGAR COLLECTORS OFFICE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging that the lands granted to the petitioner temple as Inam, have been illegally transferred to the respondents 5 to 13, this writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Na. Ka. B-2/25426/2010, dated 22.09.2012 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the properties in S. No. 291/A measuring 8.53 acres; in S. No. 291/B measuring 0.85 cents and in S. No. 291/C measuring 2.30 acres in Pudupalayam village, Rajapalayam Taluk, were granted as Inam lands to the petitioner and the said grant is Devadayam. However, the fourth respondent transferred the patta in respect of the said lands in favour of the respondents 5 to 13 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. By virtue of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, the proceedings were initiated under the said Act in 48/Srivilliputtur/66, dated 01.03.1967 and the said lands were covered under the Inam Title Deed No. 178 and therefore, they are inalienable under the provisions of the said Act. Further, one Parasurama Ayyar, who was in the administration of the temple, had obtained the orders under Act 2 of 1927, in O.A. No. 83 of 1940 from the Board of Commissioners, Hindu Religious Endowment, wherein the temple has been excepted.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the fourth respondent in transferring the patta in the name of the respondents 5 to 13, the petitioner filed the appeal before the third respondent in Na. Ka. A-1/14533 of 2006 and the same was rejected by the third respondent by order dated 05.07.2010 (P-2), holding that the said lands were sold by the said Parasurama Battar to various persons. According to the petitioner, the said Parasurama Battar had no legal right to alienate the lands of the petitioner and it is illegal. Challenging the order of the third respondent, the petitioner preferred a revision before the second respondent, who, by the impugned order dated 22.09.2012, dismissed the revision. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.