Judgment 1. The Mutt has come before this Court seeking Mandamus forhearing the Respondents from entertaining any document presented for registration in respect of the properties in Survey Nos. 11,17,18 and 20 of Survey No. 112 of Thiruvarunganery Village, Thirukkurungudi, Nanguneri Taluk in the name of Petitioner by implementing G.O.Ms. 150, Commercial Taxes Department dated 22.09.2000. 2. The case of the Petitioner is as follows: 3. The Petitioner Mutt was founded several decades ago and many Inams and gifts were given to the Mutt and as a result, it owns large extent of agriculture land in five villages and Mutt had been in possession of the properties for a century. In certain lands, the Inamdar permitted various villagers to enjoy the property and also permitted to put up houses for residential purposes as tenants. 4. Ryotwari Scheme was introduced in respect of Inam lands and proceedings came to be initiated by the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti. Various tenants who put up superstructure in the land, initiated proceedings contending that they are entitled to claim Patta in respect of the land under their occupation as per Section 13 of the Madras Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari). By an order dated 15.06.1973, the Settlement Tahsilder granted joint Patta in respect of the sites, in favour of the Petitioner Mutt as well as the tenants who were in possession of the properties. Against that order an Appeal was preferred and the Appellate Authority dismissed the said Appeal filed by the Petitioner. 5. The Petitioner claimed that it is a Religious Institution defined under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. As per Section 22-A of the Registration Act, which was introduced by an amendment by Tamil Nadu Act 48/1997, the Registering Authorities are prohibited from registering documents in which the properties of the Temples and Religious Institutions are sought to be conveyed. Under Section 22-A, G.O.Ms. No.150, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 29. 2000 was issued by the Government to the effect that Registering Officer shall treat such documents notified in the Appendix in Government Orders as opposed to public policy and shall refuse to register the same. 6. The Petitioner contended that it came to know about various transaction being registered in respect of the properties belonging to the Petitioner Mutt and therefore, in view of G.O.Ms. 6. The Petitioner contended that it came to know about various transaction being registered in respect of the properties belonging to the Petitioner Mutt and therefore, in view of G.O.Ms. No.150, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 22.09.2000, the transaction should not be registered. The Petitioner gave representation through notices dated 31.03.2003 and 02.06.2003 inviting the Registering Authorities attention to G.O.Ms. No.150 and not to register those documents in respect of the Petitioners land. As there was no reply, the Petitioner-Mutt approached this Court seeking the above relief 7. The learned Counsel for the Third Respondent filed a Counter Affidavit stating that as per the Settlement Register of the Survey Department available in the Respondent’s office, the above said Survey Numbers namely 11,17,18 and 20 of Survey No.112 of Thiruvaruganery Village are classified as ‘Village Natham’ in the name of Petitioner’s Mutt. 8. The learned Counsel for the Fourth Respondent filed a Counter Affidavit stating that almost all the lands belong to the Petitioner and supported the Petitioner’s claim. Private parties were impleaded and they also filed a Counter Affidavit stating that they are in possession of the properties for so many decades and that the properties do not belong to the Mutt as they are in possession of the Properties. However the Settlement Tahsilder by an order dated 15.06.1973 granted joint Patta in favour of the Mutt as well as the Respondents/persons who are in occupation of the land. The Appeal preferred by the Mutt against the order of Settlement Tahsildar was dismissed by an order dated 04.01.1982 confirming the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar. .9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that at the time of filing the Writ Petition, G.O.Ms. No.150 was in force and subsequently it was withdrawn and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Rajasthan and others v. Basant Nahata, 2005 (4) CTC 606. the learned Counsel produced the amendment to the registration Act, 1908 by Act No.2 of 2009 by which, it has been stated that the Registering Officer shall refuse to register the documents through which immovable properties belong to the State Government or Local Authority or belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution to which the Tamil Nadu religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) is applicable and wakfs are prohibited. The learned Counsel further submitted that even though G.O.Ms. No.150 was withdrawn, Act 2 of 2009 would enable the Registering Authority to refuse registration of the Petitioner’s properties which belong to the Hindu Religious Mutt. 10. Mr. Chandrasekaran, the learned Senior Government Pleader for Hindu Religious submitted that Registering Authority has power by Act 2 of 2009 to register the Government properties as well as Religious Institution properties. He produced a judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Aruligu Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil, Sankarankovil v. The Inspector General of Registration and two Others, W.P. No.9895 of 2005 wherein the Temple sought Writ of Mandamous against the Registering Authority prohibiting the Authorities from registering the properties conveying the document of the Temple. By relying upon Section 34(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, this Court issued a Writ of Mandamus. .11. Mr. Vijaya Narayanaan, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents 6 to 12 submitted thet the properties are in occupation of the Respondents 6 to 12 and others. He submitted that the Settlement Tahsildar by an order dated 15.06.1973 recognised the possession of the properties by Respondents and others and also recognized the superstructures put up by the persons. In the said order, Ryotwari Patta was issued jointly in the name of Mutt as well as the Respondents and two others who are in occupation. Aggrieved by that, the Petitioner-Mutt filed an Appeal in R.A. No.16 of 1974 which was disposed of by order dated 04.01.1982, by the Tribunal. In the said Appeal, it has been categorically declared that the Respondents are owing pleadings in the Inam land; they are in possession of the properties and that do not confer any power to the Appellant to claim Patta in respect of the buildings. It was further held that the Mutt is not competent to claim the title to the site attached to the building as they are owned by Respondents and others. Finally, it was held that the Mutt is incompetent to get Patta exclusively in respect of the site in which the buildings stand and it was open to the Government, to which the whole property is vested, under Section 3 to grant Patta in respect of the buildings and lands according to the provisions of the Act in respect of both buildings and site on which the buildings stand. Relying upon the said judgment/the order passed in the earlier Appeal, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that, in view of the observations made by the Appellate Authority, it is not open to the Petitioner to contend that the properties exclusively belong to the Mutt. The Original as well as the Appellate Authority recognized the possession of the properties by the Respondents and that being the fact, it is not open to the Mutt to contend before this Court that Mutt is the owner of the property. 12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in K.S. Thiruganasambandam Chettiar (dead), etc. v. The Settlement Tahsildar, coimbatore-18 and others, 1996 (1) LW 19 wherein it has been held that Dual Estate has been recognized under the Act. Para 2 of the judgment is extracted as follows: “To demolish that finding of the Special appellate Tribunal, as urged by the Appellate, it would be appropriate to reproduce here Section 13 itself. “13 (1) Every building situated within the limits of an inam land shall, with effect and from the appointed day, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that day but the Government shall be entitled for each fasli year commending with the fasli year in which the appointed day falls to levy the appropriate assessment thereon. (2) In this Section. ‘building’ includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto”. It is plain from a bare reading of the Section and its setting that it is a provision occurring in Chapter III as one of the tools to confer Ryotwari pattas to persons entitled. The Preamble of the Act makes it clear, as also its name, that the Act enables the State to accomplish acquisition of the rights of inamdars in minor inams in the State of Tamil Nadu and the introduction of ryotwari settlements in such inam lands. It nowhere envisaged that the rights of a person who held a Ryotwari Patta in his favour or was otherwise entitles to a Ryotwari Pattas, were meant to be abolished under the Act. Rather on abolition of inams claims of persons entitled, to the grant of Ryotwari Pattas had to be examined and settled. Under the provision under scrutiny too, it is patent that some Ryotwari Pattas had to be settled. Rather on abolition of inams claims of persons entitled, to the grant of Ryotwari Pattas had to be examined and settled. Under the provision under scrutiny too, it is patent that some Ryotwari Pattas had to be settled. Where buildings stood erected on inam lands immediately before the appointed day and the Government in that event was entitled to an appropriate assessment as envisaged therein. Designedly, the buildings so erected was to include the site on which it stood and any adjacent premises occupies as an appurtenance thereto. Since the scheme of the Act patently was in establishment and preservation of Ryotwari rights, it cannot be said that by virtue of Section 13, the Ryotwari rights of the site-owners stood abolished or those rights got merged in the building and hence vesting in the building owner. Rather, a dual estate is conceived of on the scheme of Section 13, that is to say, the building may belong to one and the site to another. It is, therefore, not necessary that both the site and the building should belong to one and the same person so as to derive the benefit of Section 13 with effect from the appointed day. A dual estate is not repugnant to the provision, which evidently is of a very special nature, when Ryotwari Patta may not be admissible for a building per se, but may be admissible for the site standing thereon. Yet, this is a special provision which confers rights on the building-owners also, though in the strict sense that right may not be a Ryotwari right conferable in the form of Patta. The provision, self-contained as it is, allow, the Government levying an appropriate assessment thereon for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the appointed day fell, which assessment obviously would be based on the assessment due on the site as if unbuilt, and not on the price of the building. It would, thus. Seem to us that the Special Appellate Tribunal went astray in giving an interpretation to the provision which neither furthers the objectives sought to be achieved by the Legislature nor in the fitness of the legislature design which was drawn up to achieve a purpose.” By relying upon the said judgment, the learned Counsel submitted that the building may be owned by the Respondent still the site belongs to the Petitioner. 13. 13. In the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.9895 of 2005 referred by Petitioner’s Counsel no doubt Mandamus was issued forbearing the Registering Authorities form registering temple lands referring Judgments in state of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, 2005 (4) CTC 606; Captain Dr. R. Bellie and others v. The Sub-Registrar, Sulur and others, 2007 (3) CTC 513 ; S. Arunachalam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (1) CTC 129 , A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, 2007 (5) CTC 165 (SC) : 2007 (7) SCC 482 ; Joint Commissioner HR & CE v. Jayaraman and others, 2006 (1) SCC 287. In that case, the properties were land properties and there was no superstructure whereas in this case, the superstructures were put up by the private Respondents and others and Ryotwari Pattas were issued jointly in the name of Petitioners and private Respondents. As declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Thiruganasambandam Chettiar cases, 1996 (1) LW 19 a dual estate is created viz., the buildings belonged to private Respondents and others and the lands belong to the Petitioners in view of issuance of Ryotwari Patta issued jointly. 14. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the Appellate order, they should worked their remedies by the appropriate forum in an appropriate proceedings. Having invited an order as early as in 1982, the Petitioner or the Respondents cannot be permitted to reopen the issue as reached finally already. As stated by the Settlement Tahsildar, the Respondents are in possession and had put up superstructure. The Tahsildar though found the properties standing in the name of the Mutt still recognized the possession of the properties taking note of the Superstructures put up by the Respondents and granted Ryotwari Patta jointly in the name of the Petitioner as well as private Respondents and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The G.O.Ms. No.150 was already withdrawn. Even Act 2 of 2009 talks about the properties owned by Religious Institution. The properties which are referred to in the Writ Petition cannot be called as exclusive properties of the Petitioner-Mutt. As found by the Settlement Tahsildar and the Appellate Authority, they could be deemed to be a joint properties of the Petitioner as well as the Respondents. The sites belong to the Petitioner and the superstructure are owned by the private Respondents. As found by the Settlement Tahsildar and the Appellate Authority, they could be deemed to be a joint properties of the Petitioner as well as the Respondents. The sites belong to the Petitioner and the superstructure are owned by the private Respondents. In that case, it would not be covered by Act 2 of 2009. Hence, the Relief sought for by the Petitioner cannot be granted. 15. Moreover, the matter involves a complex and disputed facts which have to be established before the Civil Court by proper pleadings and evidence. This Court cannot do roving enquiry with regard to the properties and issue Mandamus. The proceedings under Article 226 cannot decide the ownership and rights of the parties. In view of that, the relief as sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be granted. However, this order will not take away the right of the Petitioner from initiating appropriate proceedings against the private Respondents and the persons who are in possession of the properties seeking suitable relief 16. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed.