AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the proceedings of the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti dated 7-3-2001,
rejecting her claim, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and also to issue direction to respondents 2 and 3 to maintain
the character and identity of the same as a street in Vembar village and continue to take appropriate steps to maintain the character and identity of
the said street forever.
The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-According to her, she is a resident of Vembar village in Vilathikulam Taluk of Tuticorin
District. In that village, people of all communities reside. There are number of Temples wherein Hindus worship and there are churches where the
Christians offer prayers. The petitioner is a Christian and offers her prayer in St. Thomas Church, being part of Church of South India and within
TNLY Diocese. The Church has been in existence for several decades. The Church is about 150 to 160 feet away on the west from the North-
South Panchayat Road. From the Panchayat Road, there is a street branching off from it and this street goes straight to the entrance of the Church.
The street has been in existence from time immemorial and has been used as such by people of all communities of the village. The said street is in
Survey No. 328 under Sub-Division No.14. The said street is the nearest approach street to the Church from the Coastal Road and also the
nearest approach street leading the worshippers to the Church and to all residential quarters around the Church, accordingly the conclusion of the
second respondent holding that old Survey No. 243/2 and new Survey No. 328/14 as belonging to the Hindu community cannot be sustained;
hence the present writ petition.
Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered by this Court on 2-4-2001, fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit. Respondents 1 to 4 have not
chosen to file counter affidavit. The counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent runs as follows:- As the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file
this writ petition either under PIL, or on individual capacity, it (writ petition) is not maintainable. The petitioner knowing very well about the order
of the High Court in S.A.No.277/1993 and the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No. 13998/1998, deliberately misrepresented this
Court. The temple called ""Shri Pathirakaliamman Koil of Hindu Nadar Uravin Murai of Vembar-Subramanyapuram"" in Vilathikulam Taluk of
Tuticorin district belongs to the Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai. The said temple was built by ancestors of the said Uravin Murai before 100 years and
the same is being managed and administered by the present members of the said Uravin Murai as the temple is a private one and belonged to the
said Uravin Murai only. The temple situates in a land totally admeasuring 1.09 acres in Survey No. 243/2 and in 8PI, for which a Patta has been
issued by then Jamindarini of Melmandai Jameen in the year 1930. Apart from prime deity of Shri ""Pathirakali"", the deities of ""Pillayar"" and
Munisamy"" are also part of the temple in the same compound. In the western side of the temple, there is a CSI Church which belongs to CSI
Christian people of the same village and the Church of South India Association who built the church in the year 1988. The Church of South India
Trust Association through its Bishop of Tirunelveli and another filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 55/1988 before the District Munsif''s Court, Kovilpatti
against the members of the said Hindu Nadar Uravin Murai for a declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the temple property as if there
was a pathway through the temple land to the Church. The suit after contest was decreed in favour of the Church people. The appeal preferred by
the temple in A.S.No. 141/1989 before the Sub Court, Tuticorin, was dismissed. Thereafter, the Temple preferred S.A.No. 277/1993 before this
Court and it was allowed in favour of the Temple holding that the Church people had no title and possession over the suit property in any manner.
Thereupon, the Church people preferred an appeal in SLP (Civil) No. 13998/1998 before the Supreme Court of India and the same was
dismissed on 2-9-98 in the admission stage itself. Taking advantage of the decree and judgment made in favour of Church people at the earliest
stage, and at the instigation of Church people, the third respondent and his subordinates altered the land records, Village Map by carrying out
changes in ''A'' Register, FMP etc., over the temple property in order to favour the church people by entering new name, on sub-divisions. The
first respondent and his subordinates manipulated the revenue records. Therefore, the 5th respondent on behalf of the Temple had filed a petition
dated 11-10-99 before the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Since no action was taken on his petition, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 14266/2000
before this Court. While disposing of the writ petition, this court on 23-8-2000 issued direction to the first respondent to dispose of the
representation dated 11-10-99 of the 5th respondent herein. Pursuant to the said direction, now the second respondent has passed the impugned
order. The petitioner has suppressed the order of this Court in S.A.No. 277/1993 as well as the dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court. Further,
the Church people has filed a suit in O.S.No. 48/1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Vilathikulam for a permanent injunction restraining the
Temple people from interfering with their enjoyment of the schedule property as east-west pathway leading from north-south Kadarkarai chalai
and places around it. In the said suit the Temple filed counter statement along with counter claim. The suit is still pending. The said suit has been
filed to get over the judgment in S.A.No. 277/93 and to harass the Temple people.
In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.
Even in the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner is a resident of Vembar village in Vilathikulam Taluk of Tuticorin District and is challenging the
impugned order of the second respondent treating the Old Survey No. 243/2 - New Surey No.328/14 as belonging to Hindu community in
respect of a street leading to the Church. First of all, the present writ petition was not filed by the petitioner on behalf of group of people, or she
was not authorised to file the same as PIL. The only question to be considered is whether the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is
justified in treating the Old Survey No.243/2- New Survey No. 328/14 as belonging to Hindu community or a street leading to the Church as
claimed by the petitioner.
There is no dispute that this Court in Second Appeal No.277 of 93 dismissed the claim of the Church of South India Trust Association treating
the property in question as a street. It is also seen that while accepting the case of the defendants, namely, Muthuramalingam and 4 others in that
suit, it (this Court) dismissed the suit filed by Rt. Rev. Jasan Dharmaraj and Moses Packiaraj, Power Agent of Church of South India Trust
Association. It is also not disputed that the said order of this Court (S.A.277/93) dated 5-11-1997 has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in
S.L.P.(Civil) No. 13998/98 dated 2-9-98. Though it is stated that the petitioner herein was not a party in the civil proceedings, the conclusion
arrived at by this Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court cannot be ignored by any one. Mr. K.S. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, has also very much relied on the stand of the President of Vembar Panchayat. In the earlier writ petition, viz., W.P.No. 971/99,
the said Panchayat had been arrayed as third respondent and the President of the Panchayat, namely, T.M. Mariya Anthony had filed a counter
affidavit stating that the land in Survey No. 328/14 of Vembar village, Vilathikulam Taluk in Tuticorin District is being used as a public street. No
doubt, the same had been referred to in the order in Writ Petition No. 971/99 dated 27-11-2000. After going through the counter affidavit of the
deponent in that case, I am unable to accept his statement. The fifth respondent has specifically stated that the then President of Vembar Panchayat
with the connivance of certain officials corrected the revenue records, namely, that Survey No. 328/14 is being used as a public street. All these
aspects have been considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer-2nd respondent herein and in the light of the decision of this Court in S.A.No.
277/1993 dated 5-11-1997, affirmed by the Supreme Court, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Revenue Divisional Officer-
2nd respondent herein that the land in Old Survey No. 243/2-New Survey No. 328/14 belongs to the fifth respondent herein.
Apart from these facts, it is also brought to my notice that the Church people have filed a suit in O.S.No.48 of 99 on the file of District Munsif,
Vilathikulam for a permanent injunction restraining the Temple people from interfering with their enjoyment of the schedule properties. On a careful
perusal of the plaint in O.S.No. 48/99 shows that Messers. A. Deva Gnanam and A. Yovan, represented the Christian community of Vembar
have filed the said suit against one E. Palnadar and 4 others for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs'' enjoyment
of the plaint schedule property as east-west pathway leading from north-south Kadarkarai Chalai and places around it. On a further perusal of the
schedule shows that it relates to the land in Old Survey No.243/2-New Survey No. 328/14 of Vembar village. The above suit is still pending.
Whether the said suit itself is maintainable and the plaintiffs therein are entitled for any relief is a different matter. However, in the light of these facts,
I hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition on individual capacity and even on merits, I am in agreement with the
conclusion arrived at by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti - second respondent herein; accordingly the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP Nos. 8895 and 8896 of 2001 are closed.