Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2855 (MAD)

Thangaraj v. District Collector, Salem District

2018-09-11

S.MANIKUMAR, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

body2018
ORDER : S. Manikumar, J. Petitioner, Resident at Karungalpatti Village, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District, and claiming himself to a public interest litigant, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to issue patta in the name of Sri Mariamman and Sri Selliyamman Temple, Karungalpatti Village, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District in respect of the property comprised in Survey No.55/1, Old Survey No.40, based on the representation of the petitioner and public, dated 19.04.2018, forthwith. 2. Supporting the prayer sought for, Mr. C. Prabakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the above said Village, there are two temples namely "Sri Mariamman and Sri Selliyamman Temple" belonging to Vellalar Community. There are lands adjacent to the above said temples. When, people belonging to Vellalar Community, took steps to construct a temple in the vacant land, there was an objection by the other community people. Peace committee was conducted by the official respondents with the assistance of police, in the month of November 2017. 3. While matters stood thus, Revenue Department has proposed to form a playground in the said vacant land belonging to the Government. 4. Contending further that, the Villagers of Karungalpatti Village, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District, have right over the vacant land used for celebrations of festivals, such as car festival, cooking pongal, and other events, petitioner is stated to have sent a representation dated 19.04.2018, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem District, with a copy marked to the District Collector and Tahsildar, Salem District, respectively. 5. Contending inter alia that the said representation has not been answered, instant writ petition has been filed. In the said representation, petitioner has sought for issuance of patta, in the name of above said temples. 6. On instructions from the Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat Union, Salem District, Mr. M. Elumalai, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the fourth respondent, submitted that he has been instructed to state as follows:- xxx xxx xxx 7. Heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Averments made in the supporting affidavit, that temples namely "Sri Mariamman and Sri Selliyamman Temple", belong to Vellalar Community, Poojas and festivals, are performed in the vacant Government land, are question of facts. Heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Averments made in the supporting affidavit, that temples namely "Sri Mariamman and Sri Selliyamman Temple", belong to Vellalar Community, Poojas and festivals, are performed in the vacant Government land, are question of facts. Even as per the version of the petitioner, has claimed to be a probona public interest litigant, when attempt to construct temple in the vacant Government land and renovation sought to be made, people belonging to other communities in the same village, seemed to have objected to the same and when it was about to create a law and order problem, peace committee meeting has been conducted by the official respondents with the help of police. 9. Petitioner has contended that both parities have been advised not to indulge any violation activities, till a final decision is taken by the authorities and according to the petitioner, when the disputes between two parties, were pending resolution, Revenue Department has decided to form a playground in the land belonging to the Government. 10. Fact that vacant land belongs to the Government, is not disputed, but according to the petitioner, the said place is being used during celebrations of festivals, such as car festival, cooking pongal, and other events. Petitioner, claiming himself to be a public interest litigant, has sent a representation for grant of patta, in the names of above said temples. 11. Admittedly, it is a Government land. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983, reads thus:- 10. Modification of entries in the patta pass-book-(1) Where any person claims that any modification is required in respect of any entry in the patta pass-book already issued under Section 3 either by reason of the death of any person or by reason of the transfer of interest in the land or by reason of any other subsequent change in circumstances, he shall make an application to the Tahsildar for modification of the relevant entries in the patta pass-book. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the documents, if any, relied on by the applicant as evidence in support of his claim. (3) (a) Before passing an order on an application under sub section (1), the Tahsildar shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed and shall also give a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to make their representations either orally or in writing. If the Tahsildar decides that any modification should be made in respect of entries in the patta pass-book, he shall pass an order accordingly and shall make such consequential changes in the patta pass-book, as appear to him to be necessary, for giving effect to his order. (b) If the Tahsildar decides that there is no case for effecting any modification in the entries in the patta pass-book, he shall reject the application. (c) An order under clause (a) or clause (b) shall contain the reasons for such order and shall be communicated to the parties concerned in such manner as may be prescribed." 12. Tahsildar, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District, is the Competent Authority, to consider the representation, dated 19.04.2018, under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983. Suffice to state that while taking a decision the Tahsildar/Competent Authority is directed to consider the locus of the petitioner/probona public interest litigant, to maintain such representation, under Section 10 of the Act and thereafter to proceed, in accordance with law. It is also made clear the decision under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass-Book Act, 1983, is without prejudice to the power and Authority of the Revenue Department to decide the usage of the land. On the decision to be made by the Tahsildar, there are remedies in Tamilnadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983. 13. On the disputed question and facts, writ is not maintainable and therefore, we do not express any opinion on merits. 14. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.