P. Thangavel v. Special Commissioner and Land Administration

35. P. Thangavel S/o Peria Gounder(Legal heir of 27th respondent)36. Madheswaran S/o Peria Gounder37. C. RadhakrishnanS/o K. Chinnaswamy Chettiar,Petitioners/Respondents in CRP.685/06Vs1.Special Commissioner and Land Administration,Commissioner,Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The District Collector,Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 3.The District Revenue Officer,Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Kumaran Road,Tirupur, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 5.The Tasildar, Palladam TK,Palladam, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 6.Sub-Registrar,Palladam Taluk,Palladam, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 7. Varadaraja Naidu,Executive Officer,Arulmigu Angalamman Temple,Palladam, Coimbatore. 8.Narayanasami,Trustee Arulmigu Angalamman Temple,Palladam, Coimbatore. ... Respondents in W.P.No.22858/20061.Sri Angalamman Temple,Rep.by its Managing Trustee,C.Natarajan.... 1st Respondent/Appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Settlement Officer,Chepauk,Chennai 600 005.... 2nd Respondent/39th Respondent3.T.Chandra Jothi... 3rd Respondent/8th Respondent4.M.Murugesan... 4th Respondent/23rd RespondentPRAYER IN W.P.No.22858 of 2006: This writ petition is filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India to issue of writ of certiorarifiedmandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent inNa.Ka.No.11710/2004/E.2 dated 10.11.2004 confirming the order of the 4threspondent in Ref.No.2022/2002/A2 dated 22.1.2004 and quash the said orderof the 3rd respondent directing 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents to issuetransfer of pattas to the names of members of petitioner association asper orders of Settlement Tahsildar - I, Gobichettipalayam dated 22.04.1969in S.R.No.27/69 and order dated 31.10.1972 in C.M.A.No.676/69 and Batch byInams Tribunal Cum Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore from the namesof their respective vendors in respect of respective sub-divided extentsin main Survey No.334/1 Palladam Village, Palladam Taluk, CoimbatoreDistrict. PRAYER IN C.R.P.No.685 of 2006 : Civil Revision Petition filed underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and orderpendency of the C.M.A.No.81 of 2003 on the file of Principal SubordinateJudge, and Tribunal constituted under the Tamil Nadu Inam Abolition andConversion into Ryotwari Act 1963, Coimbatore.For Petitioners: Mr. Kalyanasundaram, S.C. For R.JothinarayananFor Respondents : Mr. D.Srinivasan for R1-R6 in W.P. Mr. M.M.Sundresh for R8 in WP & CRP for R1 Mr. R.C.Manoharan R3 & R4 in C.R.P.O R D E RThe C.R.P.No.685 of 2005 is filed under Article 227 of theConstitution of India to call for the records pertaining to C.M.A.No.81 of2003 pending before the Principle Subordinate Judge Tribunal and Tribunalconstituted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversioninto Ryotwari) Act 1963, Coimbatore and to set aside the proceedings. Thesaid appeal has been filed by Sri Angalamman Temple, namely, the firstrespondent in the revision petition against the order of the Settlement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam, dated 22.04.1969. The lands in questioncomprising in Survey No.334 (Dry) to the extent of 12.72 acres situated atPalladam Village, was originally granted as Devadayam by Kartar King ofMysore for the support of the Pagoda of Sri Angalamman Temple at Palladamby the British Government in T.D.No.516 along with another property. Thesaid Inam was notified and taken over under the provisions of the MadrasMinor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963, with effectfrom 15.02.1965. There was an enquiry conducted by the SettlementTahsildar I Gobichettipalayam under Section 11 of the said Act. TheSurvey No.334/1 being used for non agricultural purposes consisting ofhouse sites and therefore, enquiry was deferred. It was there after, theSettlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam has conducted an enquiry todetermine the persons eligible for Ryothwari patta. After enquiry, anextent of 4.09 acres stated in the Schedule A of the order of theSettlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam dated 22.04.1969 were issued withthe Ryotwari patta under Section 13 of the said Act, to various personsmentioned therein. They were related to house sites patta. In respect ofanother extent of 8.32 acres mentioned in the Schedule B of the saidorder, patta was granted to the first respondent Sri Angalamman Temple,Palladam represented by its Trustee for the time being under Section 13r/w Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act. In respect of the remaining 0.32 acres,a joint patta was given to the first respondent Sri Angalamman Templealong with one Kulandaiappa Chettiyar, S/o Palaniyappa Chettiyar,Palladam. 2. Out of the said 8.32 acres of land for which the patta was grantedto the first respondent temple in the B Schedule, in respect of 3.94acres, batch of appeals were filed before the Minor Inams Tribunal,Coimbatore under Section 11(3) of the said Act in C.M.A.No.670 of 1969etc., batch. The said appeals were allowed by an order dated 31.10.1972by granting patta to the appellants under Section 13 of the said Act.However, in respect of the remaining extent of 4.38 acres of land, out ofthe total 8.32 acres, the occupants have not filed appeal against theoriginal order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayamdated 22.04.1969. In the said appeal, the first respondent temple hereinhas been the second respondent and it was after contest, the said ordercame to be passed. In respect of the said remaining extent of 4.38 acresof land, still 19 persons are in occupation of the said housing plots. 3. The first respondent temple having not filed any appeal in respectof 4.09 acres of land for which patta has been granted to private partiesas per the A Schedule of the order of the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam dated 22.04.1969, has filed C.M.A.No.81 of 2003 on20.11.2003, after a lapse of more than 34 years purported to be underSection 11(3) of the Minor Inams Act, before the Inams Tribunal, namely,Sub-Court, Coimbatore and it is challenging the said appeal in C.M.A.No.81of 2003 filed by the first respondent the above revision is filed underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, who were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ granted patta by the Settlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam underSection 13 of the Act. The grounds under which the said appeal ischallenged in C.R.P.No.685 of 2006 and W.P.No.45549 of 2006 arei) Section 11(3) of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversioninto Ryotwari) Act, 1963, contemplates filing of any appeal against theorder of Assistant Settlement Officer under Sub Section 2 within a periodof 3 months in respect of individuals and in respect of Government oneyear. It also contemplates an extension of further 2 months can becondoned by the Tribunal. It further provides that in cases of appeal bythe Government, the Tribunal can set aside the decision of the SettlementOfficer at any time, if it is vitiated by fraud or by mistake of facts.In the present case, when once the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam has passed the order under Section 11(1) of the Act, fordetermination regarding the entitlement of Ryotwari patta, the filing ofthe present appeal in C.M.A.No.81 of 2003 by the first respondent aftermore than 34 years, is not competent. ii) It is also the case of the petitioners that the first respondenttemple cannot say either that it was not aware of the proceedings beforethe Settlement Tahsildar I Gopichettipalayam or no notice was served sinceadmittedly in respect of the B Schedule property, which is also formingpart of the same survey number, patta has been given to the firstrespondent temple by the same order dated 22.04.1969. It is also their specific case that when individual appeals were filedagainst the persons, who were in occupation, to whom the patta was notgranted in C.M.A.No.670 of 1969 etc., batch, the first respondent has beenshown as the second respondent in those appeals and the second respondentwas represented through counsel and therefore, it can never be said as if,the first respondent temple was not aware. iii) The claim of the first respondent temple by invoking Section 109of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 tosay that the appeal is maintainable irrespective of the period oflimitation, is also not sustainable. According to the petitioners, thesaid section will apply only in cases where the individuals claim adversepossession of temple lands belong to H.R.& C.E. department and in theevent of any occupants claming adverse possession against the temple andtherefore, the said provision is not applicable to the filing of appealunder Section 11(3) of the Minor Inams Act, which is a self containedcode. iv) A reference is made Section 46 of the Minor Inams Act, which saysthat any order passed by the Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal has becomefinal only subject to appeal. Therefore, according to the petitioners inso far as it relates A Schedule property to the extent of 4.09 acres ofland comprising the order of the Settlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 22.04.1969 and order of the Inams Tribunal dated 31.10.1972, inrespect of B Schedule property to the extent of 3.94 acres, have becomefinal and cannot be reopened under C.M.A.No.81 of 2003 by the InamsTribunal, Coimbatore. 4. Therefore, according to the petitioners there is a total lack ofjurisdiction for maintaining the appeal due to the above said reasons andtherefore, prayed for quashing the appeal on the file of the InamsTribunal, Coimbatore. 5. W.P.No.22858 of 2006 is filed by Periyar Nagar VeetuUrimaiyalargal Podhu Nala Sangam, Palladam Village against the order ofthe third respondent District Revenue Officer dated 10.11.2004 confirmingthe order of the 4th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatoredated 22.01.2004 and also for a direction against the respondents 2 to 5to issue pattas in the name of the members of the petitioner associationas per the order of the Settlement Tahsildar I, Gobichettipalayam dated22.04.1969 in S.R.No.27 of 1969 and order of the Minor Inams Tribunal,Coimbatore dated 31.10.1972 passed in C.M.A.No.670 of 1969 etc., batch, inrespect of Survey No.334/1 Palladam Village, Palladam Taluk, CoimbatoreDistrict.6. According to the petitioner Association the members of thepetitioner Association were granted Ryotwari patta under Section 13 r/wSection 8(2) of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion intoRyotwari) Act, 1963, in respect of A and B Schedule properties mentionedin the order dated 22.04.1969. Narrating the facts stated in the aboverevision, the petitioner association would state that after the orderpassed in C.M.A.No.670 of 1969 etc., batch patta has been granted inrespect of A and B Schedule properties and the persons to whom the pattahas been granted as per the Inams Act, have sold their lands and themembers of the petitioner association are the subsequent purchasers,holding the same as house sites and the original patta issued in favour oftheir vendors still remains as on date. It was the members of thepetitioner association who made representation to the second respondentthe District Collector on 16.12.2002 to issue patta in favour of themembers of the petitioner association, who were the purchasers, which wasforwarded by the second respondent to the 4th respondent, who by theimpugned order dated 22.01.2004, has dismissed the claim of issuance ofpatta stating that the Arulmigu Angalamman Temple namely the 7th and 8threspondents in the writ petition, was not given sufficient opportunity bythe Settlement Tahsildar and directed to file an appeal before the thirdrespondent and the third respondent by the impugned order dated 10.11.2004has upheld the order of the 4th respondent on the ground that the templehas filed C.M.A.No.81 of 2003, which is pending before the AppellateTribunal. It was for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is filedchallenging the impugned orders and also for further direction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The first respondent in the revision, who is represented byrespondents 7 and 8 in the writ petition, namely, the Arulmigu AngalammanTemple has filed a counter affidavit. While admitting that the SettlementTahsildar I, Gobichettipalayam has granted patta in respect of A Scheduleto the extent of 4.09 acres to individuals and in respect of the templeregarding 8.02 acres, would submit during proceedings no notice was servedon the temple, which was not represented either by trustee or byadministrator. According to the temple, the persons who have representedbefore the Settlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam, were poojaris, whohave no right. 8. It is also further case of the temple that the petitionerassociation cannot maintain the writ petition. It is also further casethat under Section 45 of the Minor Inams Act, the copy of the order of anyproceedings have to be served on parties and period of limitation will runonly from the date of communication and the temple has not received anyorder. Therefore, according to them, by applying Section 109 of the H.R.& C.E. Act, the question of limitation will not arise. In respect of theappeal before the Inams Tribunal in C.M.A.No. 670 of 1969 etc., batch, therespondent state that it is to be seen as to whether the respondent templehas been properly represented. 9. It is also the case of the temple that in respect oneThiyagarajan, who filed appeal in C.M.A.No.1 of 1981 against the templethe same was dismissed. It is also the case of the temple that when oncethe temple has filed appeal in C.M.A.No.81 of 2003, the individual personscan very well contest by appearing in the case. Therefore according tothe temple, the C.R.P. as well as the Writ Petition are misconceived. 10. The petitioner in C.R.P. has also filed reply affidavit,reiterating the earlier fact and also stating that in respect of oneportion of the property called B Schedule, the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam has granted patta in favour of the temple and before theTribunal the temple has been represented by the counsel and therefore, itis false for the temple now to alleged as if no notice has been served. 11. Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram learned Senior counsel appearing for thepetitioners in both the revision as well as the Writ Petition, whilereiterating all the legal issues raised by the petitioners, would submitthat the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition the Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1963 is a self contained code. The purpose of Section 11 is to determinethe persons, who are entitled for Ryotwari patta and when a statutoryenquiry is conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam andpatta is granted, the said Section provides a period of limitation, makingit clear that the period of limitation of 3 months can be extended only byanother 2 months and not otherwise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. It is also his contention that only in respect of the Governmentappeal, when fraud or mistake fact is alleged, the period of limitation isnot applicable. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the firstrespondent temple was represented both before the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam as well as before the Minor Inams Tribunal, Coimbatore.It is also his contention that when the temple in the counter affidavithas specifically admitted that C.M.A.No.1 of 1981 filed by oneMr.Thiyagarajan against the temple, was dismissed, which was also in thesame batch and when that fact was known to the first respondent temple, itis not known as to how the knowledge of the temple can be stated to havearisen only now for filing of the present appeal in C.M.A.No.81 of 2003.He would also submit that even before the Inams Tribunal, the temple wasrepresented by the counsel and poojaris are not the parties in any of theproceedings at all. Therefore, it is too late for the temple now to statefalsely as if, they came to know only now. 13. He would also further submit by referring to the Tamil Nadu HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 with particular reference toSection 109 of the Act, to substantiate his contention that the saidSection applies only in respect of suit filed by the Temple for possessionof immovable property and that Section has no application as far as theapplicability of the Minor Inams Act, 1963, which is a self containedcode. He would also submit that as per Section 46 of the Minor Inams Act,any order passed by the authority under the Act or Tribunal becomes finalunless appeal or revision is filed, which means the said revision orappeal filed in accordance with the period of limitation stated under theAct. 14. He would also submit that Section 45 of the Act, will not come tothe protection of the first respondent temple, especially in thecircumstance that the temple has been a party throughout the proceedingsand the temple has been represented through counsel. He would also submitthat respondents 3 and 4 in the Writ Petition have wrongly come to theconclusion as if, the Settlement Authority has not given any notice to thetemple and under that pretext refused to grant patta to the members of thepetitioner association, who are the subsequent purchaser from the originalpatta holders, whose name, the patta granted by the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam under the Minor Inams Act, stands even as on today.15. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, namely, 4th respondent in the Writ Petition has passed theimpugned order dated 22.01.2004 on an erroneous conclusion as if, nonotice was served on the temple at all. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. On the other hand Mr.M.M.Sundaresh, learned counsel appeared forthe first respondent in the revision, who are represented by respondents 7and 8 in the Writ Petition, namely, the Arulmigu Angalamman Temple.According to the learned counsel, the revision under Article 227 is notmaintainable. According to him whether the appeal filed within the periodof limitation or not, has to be decided in the appeal and in suchcircumstances, when an alternative remedy is available under the MinorInams Act, by way of statutory appeal, which has been taken up by therespondent temple, the revision petition filed under Article 227 is to bedismissed. 17. He would also submit that the petitioner association in the WritPetition cannot represent the individual purchasers, while submitting thatin respect of the patta granted in favour of the temple, no appeal hasbeen filed by any occupiers. He would also submit that the period oflimitation has to be decided by the appellate Tribunal. He would placereliance on not only Section 45 of the Minor Inams Act, which states thatit is only from the date of receipt of the copy of any order, any periodof limitation should run. He would also place reliance on the judgementof this Court rendered in Alamelu Ammal Vs. District Collector, Salemreported in 1997(1) CTC 669. 18. He would also rely upon the Division Bench judgement of thisCourt in Panduranga Chetti and another Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu,rep.by the Collector of North Arcot and another reported in 1978(II) MLJ388 to show that when the order was not communicated, the period oflimitation should run from the date of communication. 19. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners aswell as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused theentire records. 20. As I have stated above, the facts relating to the case areadmitted by both parties. While it is true that the Settlement TahsildarI Gobichettipalayam in his order dated 22.04.1969, has considered issuanceof patta in respect of Survey No.334/1 relating to 12.72 acres of landunder the statutory powers vested on him under the Madras Minor Inams(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. A reference to theorder passed by the Settlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam dated22.04.1969 shows that the Settlement Tahsildar has examined the villagekarnam before whom the documents, namely, Inams B Registrar were filed andan elaborate survey was made by the Tahsildar by finding out the personswho were in possession of various plots of lands and ultimately has cometo a conclusion, by identifying the persons mentioned in the A Scheduleproperty to the extent of 4.09 acres of land and has granted patta intheir favour. Admittedly, the patta granted in favour of those personsstands either unchallenged or remain as it is as on date and it was based https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on the said pattas issued under the Minor Inams Act, after the enquiryconducted under the Act, the present petitioners have purchased the same. 21. It is also admitted that in respect of the remaining 8.32 acresof land patta has been granted to the temple. Further reference to theappeal filed under Section 11(3) of the Act, by those persons who were notgranted patta but the temple has been granted patta in respect of 3.94acres of land in B Schedule property, the temple has been shown as secondrespondent and the order of the Minor Inams Tribunal, Coimbatore inC.M.A.No.670 of 1969 etc., batch dated 30.10.1972 categorically shows thatthe second respondent temple has been represented through counsel and itwas after hearing all the counsel only, the Tribunal has passed an orderas early as 31.10.1972. Therefore, factually one cannot come to aconclusion as if, the first respondent temple was not representedthroughout in the settlement proceedings. Therefore, the necessaryconsequence is that the first respondent temple should be taken as havingknowledge about the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam and the subsequent appeals before the Inams Tribuna inC.M.A.No.670 of 1969 etc., batch. 22. When the first respondent temple has taken a stand that the orderof the Settlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam dated 22.04.1969, was notknown to them till they have filed the present impugned appeal inC.M.A.No.81 of 2003 on 20.11.2003 which is nearly 35 years after the orderpassed by the authority under the Minor Inams Act and especially, placingreliance on Section 45 of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversioninto Ryotwari) Act, 1963, it is the duty of the first respondent to say atleast now as to when such copy of the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam, dated 22.04.1969 was received by them. Unfortunately,in the counter affidavit filed by the temple even though a reference ismade about Section 45 of the Minor Inams Act, it is not stated as to whenthe order of the Settlement Tahsildar was either received by them or theycame to know about it. The facts as I have enumerated above that in theInams Tribunal and in the batch of appeals in C.M.A.No.670 of 1969 etc.,batch they were represented through the counsel, goes to show that thepresent claim is made only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings,which is otherwise hopelessly barred by limitation. 23. It is in this regard relevant to point out the provisions of TheMadras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963,especially relating to Section 11 of the Act, which states as follows: "11. (1) The Assistant Settlement Officer shall, subject to theprovisions of sub-section (2) inquire into the claims of any persons for aryotwari patta under this Act in respect of any inam land and decide inrespect of which land the claim should be allowed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) (a) Before holding the enquiry under sub-section(1), theAssistant Settlement Officer shall give notice in the prescribed manner tothe inamdar and to the Tahsildar of the taluk or Deputy Tahsildar of thesub-taluk in which the inam land in situated; and (i) if the person in occupation of the land is not the inamdar, tothe occupant; (ii) if the inam has been granted for the benefit of a Hindureligious institution or for service therein, to the Commissionerappointed under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 (Madras Act XXII of 1959), or to an officer specified by the saidCommissioner in this behalf; (iii) if the inam is a wakf within the meaning of the Wakf Act, 1954(Central Act XXIX of 1954), to the Board of Wakfs constituted under thatAct, or to an officer specified by the said Board in this behalf; (iv) to such other persons as may be specified in the rules made bythe Government in this behalf.)(b) The Assistant Settlement Officer shall also publish in theprescribed manner in the village the notice referred to in clause(a) andafter giving the parties who appear before him an opportunity to be heardand to adduce their evidence give his decision. (3) Against a decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer under sub-section (2), the Government may, within one year from the date of thedecision, and any person aggrieved by such decision may, within threemonths of the said date, appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow further timenot exceeding two months for the filing of any such appeal: Provided further that the Tribunal may in its discretion, entertain anappeal by the Government at any time if it appears to the Tribunal thatthe decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer was vitiated by fraud orby mistake of fact."24. Therefore, while conducting an enquiry the Assistant SettlementOfficer has to give notice to various persons as stated under Section 11(2) of the Act. In the present case Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam in his order dated 22.04.1969 has stated that he hasexamined 25 witnesses. It is also the specific case of the firstrespondent temple that the trustees or administrators have not been givennotice but the temple was represented by poojaris. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25. On the other hand as I have stated above the order of the InamsTribunal dated 31.10.1972 passed in C.M.A.No.670 of 1969 etc., batch, inwhich the second respondent is the temple represented by its ManagingTrustee Varadaraja Naidu, who was represented by the counsel andtherefore, on fact it cannot be accepted as if, some unauthorized personshave represented the temple. 26. As correctly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioners, the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion intoRyotwari) Act 1963, is self contained code and it contemplates thespecific provision and period of limitation for appeal under Section 11(3)is provided. Further, any order passed by the authorities under the Actbecomes final as it is stated under Section 46 of the Act which runs asfollows: "46. (1) Any order passed by any officer the Government or otherauthority or any decision of the Tribunal or the Special AppellateTribunal under this Act in respect of matters to be determined for thepurposes of this Act shall subject only to any appeal or revision providedunder this Act be final. (2) No such order or decision shall be liable to be questioned in anyCourt of law."27. The Act is given a overriding effect to the contract or any otherlaws under Section 49 and also confers power in respect of grant ofRyotwari patta to Innamdars under Section 8(2) notwithstanding the otherlaws including the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 oncertain conditions. Therefore, there is absolutely no difficulty to cometo the conclusion that the period of limitation for filing appeal for thefirst respondent against the order of the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam dated 22.04.1969 was 3 months from the date of the orderor further period of 2 months, which can be excused. It is in this regardthe contention of the learned counsel for the respondents placing relianceon Section 45 of the Act which is relevant to be considered. Section 45of The Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act1963 runs as follows: "45. (1) A copy of every decision or order in any proceeding againstwhich an appeal or revision is provided for under this Act shall becommunicated in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) For the purpose of computing the period of limitation in respectof any appeal or application for revision against any decision or orderthe date of communication of a copy of the decision or order to theappellant or applicant shall be deemed to be the date of the decision ororder. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (3) The provisions of section 4 and sub-section (1) sub-section (2)of section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 (Central Act IX of 1908)shall so far as may be apply to any appeal or application for revisionunder this Act. (4) Where under this Act an appeal or application for revision may bepreferred to any authority or officer within a prescribed period or withinsuch further time not exceeding a specified period as may be allowed bysuch authority or officer, the further time aforesaid shall be computed onand from the expiry of such prescribed period computed in accordance withthe provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3)."28. While it is true that the first respondent has not statedanywhere as to when he has received the order of the Settlement TahsildarI Gobichettipalayam dated 22.04.1969 and also it is true that in respectof one of the portions of the order of the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam dated 22.04.1969, when some of the occupants have filedthe appeal before the Inams Tribunal in which the temple was shown assecond respondent, which was represented by the counsel, it is relevant topoint out that even as admitted by the first respondent temple, oneT.Thiyagarajan has filed appeal before the Minor Inams Tribunal inC.M.A.No.1 of 1981 against the same order of the Settlement Tahsildar IGobichettipalayam dated 22.04.1969 and that was dismissed by the Tribunalas early as on 05.01.1983. A reference to the copy of the said decreepassed by the Inams Tribunal in C.M.A.No.1 of 1981 as filed by the firstrespondent temple itself in the typed set of paper shows that the copy ofthe said order has been communicated to the counsel who appeared in thesaid appeal before the Inams Tribunal. Therefore, even assuming that theorder of the Inams Tribunal passed in C.M.A.No.670 of 1969 etc., batchdated 31.10.1972 was not represented properly by the first respondent,when admittedly the first respondent has represented in C.M.A.No.1 of 1981the order of dated 05.01.1983 which was communicated to the counsel as itis seen in the decree of the Tribunal, it has to be presumed that at least1983 the first respondent temple had the knowledge about the order of theSettlement Tahsildar I Gobichettipalayam dated 22.04.1969. When that isthe factual position, I do not think that the wordings of Section 45 canbe taken advantage of by the first respondent temple for the purpose ofexplaining the long delay of 35 years in filing the appeal. The benefitunder Section 45 can be made applicable to those persons who are notparties or who are not represented through counsel either before theSettlement Tahsildar or before the Innam Tribunal. Adding to that in thepresent case as I have pointed out earlier, the first respondent templehas not even stated as to when the first respondent came to know about theorder of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 22.04.1969. On the facts andcircumstances of the case when once the copy has been served to thecounsel representing the first respondent, that should be taken asknowledge of the petitioners and therefore, the contention raised by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel for the first respondent as if the actual notice should beserviced and that has to be decided in the appeal is unsustainable. Insuch circumstances allowing of such appeal after a belated period of 35years which is hopelessly barred by limitation and in the present factualsituation herein can only be an abuse of process of law and this Courtcannot be mute spectator to allow such proceedings to go on. 29. The further contention placing reliance on Section 109 of theTamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 has no legsto stand Section 109 which runs as follows: "109. Central Act 36 of 1963 not to apply for recovery of properties ofreligious institution.- Nothing contained in the Limitation Act, 1963(Central Act 36 of 1963) shall apply to any suit for possession ofimmovable property belonging to any religious institution or forpossession of any interest in such property."30. A reading of the said section shows that the period of limitationis dispensed with only in respect of cases filed by the religiousinstitutions for the purpose of possession of properties occupiedunauthorisedly by the occupants who claim adverse possession whereas onthe facts and circumstances of the present case the same is governed bythe special enactment, namely, the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition andConversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963. Equally, the reliance placed on bythe learned counsel for the first respondent temple in the judgementrendered in Alamelu Ammal Vs. District Collector Salem reported in 1997(1)CTC 669 is not sustainable. That was the case wherein the appellantbefore the Division Bench of this Court was not a party to the proceedingsbefore the Settlement Tahsildar. On the other hand in the present case,the first respondent has been a party not only before the SettlementTasildhar I Gobichettipalayam but also effectively represented through theInams Tribunal in C.M.A.No.670 of 1969 etc., batch constituted under theMadras Minor Inams (Abolition the Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963, asper Section 11(3) of the Act and C.M.A.No.1 of 1981. 31. The reliance placed on the judgement of the Division Bench ofthis Court reported in 1978 (2) MLJ 388 in Panduranga Chetty and anotherVs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Collector, North Arcot andanother. That was the case wherein the appellant has specifically made aclaim that the order was communicated on a particular day and that pointwas not considered by the Tribunal at all and the Division Bench has alsogone into the merits of the case. On the present factual position as Ihave enumerated above, seeking refugee under Section 45 of the Act willonly thwart the entire object of the Act which is specialized in nature. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. In view of the same the revision petition stands allowed and theproceedings before the learned Subordinate judge and Tribunal constitutedunder Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)Act,1963, Coimbatore in C.M.A.No.81 of 2003 are quashed. Consequently, theimpugned orders of the respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.22858 of 2006 are setaside with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of theclaimants in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. No Costs.Consequently, the connected M.P. and C.M.P.are closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarnbjTo1.The Special Commissioner and Land Administration,Commissioner,Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The District Collector,Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 3.The District Revenue Officer,Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer Kumaran Road,Tirupur, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 5.The Tasildar, Palladam TK,Palladam, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 6.Sub-Registrar,Palladam Taluk,Palladam, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 7.The Settlement OfficerChepauk, Chennai -5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.The Settlement Tahsildar,Gobichettipalayam.9.The Principal Subordinate Judge,Coimbatore.10.The Executive Officer,Arulmigu Angalamman Temple,Palladam, Coimbatore.11.The Trustee,Arulmigu Angalamman Temple,Palladam, Coimbatore.2 cc To Mr.R.Jothinarayanan,, Advocate, SR.64733.1 cc To Mr.R.C.Manoharan, Advocate, SR.64734.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.65128.W.P.No.22858 of 2006 and C.R.P.No.685 of 2006 TM(CO)RVL 28.12.2006