Kiran Raj

The Madras High Court, Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh delivered a judgment on March 10, 2025, addressing the legality of a patta cancellation order. The case revolved around the dispute over 3.60 acres of land in Sattaiyampudur, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, between members of the Sengundhar community and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department. The court quashed the order cancelling pattas in favor of individuals and directed the revenue authorities to restore the pattas. It also granted the temples the liberty to establish their title before the civil court.

The petitioners, P. Thirugnanam and R. Rajavel, held the position of Nattamaikarars of the Sengundhar community in Sattaiyampudur. The disputed land was acquired through sale deeds dated March 9, 1896, and June 21, 1910, for community use, particularly for weaving-related activities and residential purposes.

Also Read: Supreme Court Holds That Insolvency Moratorium Does Not Bar Consumer Protection Penalties, Directs Compliance with NCDRC Orders

The controversy arose when certain individuals sought individual pattas, which the Tahsildar, Tiruchengode, granted through proceedings dated October 23, 2015. Out of 3.60 acres, 2.14 acres were developed with houses, a library, and a marriage hall, while 1.46 acres remained for community use. Meanwhile, the fourth respondent, A. Radhakrishnan, claimed that the land belonged to temples and sought an official survey.

On April 6, 2018, the District Revenue Officer (DRO) cancelled the pattas issued in 2015, directing the mutation of records in favor of the temples. This order led to W.P. No. 11727 of 2018 challenging the cancellation, and W.P. No. 10143 of 2020, filed by Radhakrishnan, seeking a field survey.

The court initially ordered a field survey on September 3, 2020. However, upon reconsideration, the court restored W.P. No. 10143 of 2020 for a fresh hearing along with W.P. No. 11727 of 2018.

The court noted that the DRO primarily targeted one particular Tahsildar, R. Kuppusamy, who issued the 2015 pattas, while similar orders by Tahsildars K. Rangarajan (July 31, 2008) and N. Rathinam (August 19, 2016) were left undisturbed.

It further examined the conflict between the title documents (1896 and 1910 sale deeds) relied upon by the petitioners and the revenue records listing the land under temple ownership. The court stated:

"The dispute is between the title documents relied upon by the petitioners and the revenue records that stood in the names of the temples. It, therefore, touches upon the right and title over the subject property."

Referring to the decision in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. v. District Collector, Kancheepuram, 2011 (5) CTC 94, the court reaffirmed that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to determine ownership when title disputes exist. The judgment stated:

"The Revenue Authorities cannot go into the disputed questions of fact nor render findings on the question of title. If the same is done, such an order becomes illegal since it is beyond the scope of the Patta Passbook Act."

The court observed that the patta entries for the temples were inconsistent with earlier sale deeds. It recorded that the temples could not claim automatic ownership without due legal process:

"The fact that the patta, for a particular period of time, stood in the names of the temples, by itself, will not take away the right of the individuals who purchased the same and who traced their title based on the documents of the years 1896 and 1910."

The judgment held that the temples must approach a competent civil court to establish their claim rather than seek administrative intervention.

Also Read: ‘Imposition of 100% Penalty Not Justified’: Patna High Court Reduces Fine and Orders Unsealing of Sealed Shop in Excise Case

The court allowed W.P. No. 11727 of 2018 and quashed the DRO’s order dated April 6, 2018. It directed:

1. The Tahsildar, Tiruchengode, to restore the pattas in the names of the respective individuals within four weeks.

2. The temples were granted liberty to establish their title in a civil court, with the clarification that no previous administrative or judicial order would prejudice such proceedings.

3. P. No. 10143 of 2020 and WMP No. 17269 of 2020 were dismissed as a consequence of allowing W.P. No. 11727 of 2018.

Advocates Representing the Parties

• For Petitioners in W.P. No. 11727 of 2018: Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate

• For Respondents 1 & 2 in W.P. No. 11727 of 2018 and Respondents 11 & 16 in W.P. No. 10143 of 2020: Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan, AGP

• For Respondent 3 in W.P. No. 11727 of 2018 and Respondents 7, 17 & 18 in W.P. No. 10143 of 2020: Mr. S. Ravichandran, AGP (HR & CE)

• For Respondent 19 in W.P. No. 10143 of 2020: Mr. N. Manokaran Advocate

Case Title: P. Thirugnanam & R. Rajavel v. The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal & Others

Case Number: W.P. Nos. 11727 of 2018 & 10143 of 2020

Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

[Read/Download order]