A. Raju v. Karuppaih

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:30-10-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMW.P.No.13708 of 1999A. Raju.. Petitioner. -vs-1. Karuppaih2. Shanmugam3. Karnan4. Anbu5. Babu6. Rajendran7. R. Muthuvelar8. The Record Officer (Tenancy Records) and Tahsildar, Madurai North9. The Revenue Divisional Officer Madurai10.The District Revenue Officer, Madurai .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the District Revenue Officer, Madurai dated03.05.1999 and passed in Cee. Ma 5 of 1998 (R.P.No.)(Na.Ka.3165/98)and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.C.R. Krishnamoorthy For R8 to R10 : Mr.G.Desingu Special Government PleaderO R D E RThe petitioner had filed the above Writ petition challenging the order passed by the 10th respondent herein, The District RevenueOfficer, Madurai. By the impugned order, the 10th respondent has setaside the earlier orders passed by the Record Officer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Tenancy Records)-cum- Tahsildar, Madurai North and the RevenueDivisional Officer, Madurai, thereby deleting the petitioner's name as the cultivating tenant of the lands owned by Poosaries. Patta has been issued in the name of four Poosaries and Iyyanar Temple.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein submitted an application to the 8th respondent on 12.09.1979 to record his name as the cultivating tenant. The 8th respondent, after conducting necessary enquiry, recorded the name of the petitioner as the cultivating tenant. Aggrieved by such entry, the Pattathars of the property filed an appeal before the 9th respondent. The AppellateAuthority, by an order dated 27.05.1985 confirmed the order of the Record Officer dated 12.09.1979. Aggrieved by such order, the Pattathars filed a Revision before 10th respondent. The RevisionalAuthority, by an order dated 14.09.1986 allowed the Revision Petitionand set aside the orders passed by the 8th and 9th respondents. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner filed a Writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 11198 of 1986. The said Writ petition was allowed by an order dated 09.12.1996 and remanded the matter to the District Revenue Officer, Madurai for fresh disposal according to law within a period of 90 days from receipt of a copy of order. Onremand, the 10th respondent herein by an order dated 03.05.1999dismissed the Revision Petition, which order is impugned in the Writpetition.

Mr. C.R. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is erroneous and outcome of non application of mind. The petitioner is in possession of the property as the tenant and he has been regularly paying"Warams" and he is in possession of receipts also issued for such payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that even as on date, the petitioner is in possession of the property and Kist is remitted by the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no jurisdiction for Civil Court to decide the present question and on the basis of any such decision, right of the petitioner cannot be extinguished. On the above ground, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is not sustainable.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 & 7 wherein it has been contended that after the Inams were abolished as per Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, the 7threspondent and parents of respondents 1 to 6 represented before the Settlement Tahsildar, Madurai and obtained Ryot Wari Patta for the lands along with other lands under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act 30 of1963 by the order of the Tahsildar dated 22.06.1976 in favour of the Manjampatty Ayyanar Temple and four others recognizing them as hereditary Poosaries and trustees of the Temple doing services to the Temple. Since one of the trustees began to lay claim of the property https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for himself, one of the trustees filed an appeal in C.M.A. No. 227 of1971 and the mischief was averted. The Settlement Tahsildar, after due enquiry, has granted Ryot Wari Patta to the lands in favour of Ayyanar Temple and recognized all the four Poosaries as Trustees.

It is submitted that the Writ petitioner's father and eight others had laid some claims over the lands based on some documents executed by one of the Poosaries namely S. Karanthamalai Velar. Therefore, a suit in O.S. No. 54 of 1977 came to be filed before the District Munsif Court at Melur for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed on 31.07.1978 and the Plaintiff filed an execution petition in E.P.No. 217 of 1978 and possession was taken over by three trustees on 08.11.1978 through Court.

It is further submitted that among nine Defendants in O.S. No.54 of 1977, five Defendants continued to interfere with the possession of the petitioner's land. Hence, O.S. No. 61 of 1979 was filed before District Munsif Court, Melur for permanent injunction and the Writ petitioner's father and four other were permanentlyinjuncted from interfering into the lands. In fact, the Writpetitioner sought for impleading himself in I.A.No. 734 of 1980 inO.S. No. 61 of 1979 which was rejected by an order dated 13.12.1980.As against the said order, the petitioner preferred C.R.P. No. 1041of 1981 before this Court and the same was dismissed as not pressed on 15.07.1981. Thus, it is contended that the possession of the land was taken over by the trustees on 08.11.1978 and now the petitioner at the instigation of his father filed an application on 12.09.1979after the decree in O.S. No. 54 of 1977 dated 31.07.1978 and got his name recorded as tenant. Therefore, learned counsel would contend that the impugned order in the present Writ petition is perfectly valid and calls for no interference.

I have carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials available on record.

It is not in dispute that the suit in O.S. No. 54 of 1977 came to be decreed on 31.07.1978 and the decree was executed in E.P. No.217 of 1978 and the trustees have taken possession through Court on08.11.1978. One of the Defendants in the said suit is father of the Writ petitioner. After more than one year after the suit was decreed, the petitioner / son has filed an application before the RecordOfficer (Tenancy Record) on 12.09.1979. The Record Officer by an order dated 21.02.1983, recorded name of the petitioner as tenant in Survey No. 81/4 Part northern portion. It is seen even in the said order, observation has been made that prior to handing over the possession of land to the 1st respondent herein (one of the hereditarypoosaries), they continue to till the land. Thus, it is to be noted that the property in question was in possession of the trustees of the Temple pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court.

By applying the principle laid down in the above referred judgement, if facts of the present case are looked into, there is undoubtedly the Civil Court Decree in favour of trustees and possession of such property has been validly handed over to them by Court Ameen and such possession cannot be construed to be a paper delivery as contended by the petitioner. The Civil Court Decree and the effect of handing over the possession would have a binding effect on the present proceedings under the Record of Tenancy Act. Therefore, in my view, the Revisional Authority rightly rejected the contention raised by the petitioner and held that after the CivilSuit Decree, no record has been produced by the petitioner to prove the possession.