W.A.No.1280 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W. A. No.1 280 of 2026 R.Prabha (Died) D/o.Late H.R.Venkat Rangachari W/o.Late Rajagopal D.No.12/50, Nethaji Road Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District 1.Raghu S/o.Late Rajagopal 2.Revathi D/o.Late Rajagopal 3.Ramesh S/o.Late Rajagopal All residing at D.No.12/50, Nethaji Road Hosur 635 109, Krishnagiri District .. Appellants Vs 1.The Commissioner of Land Administration (CLA) Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005 2.The District Revenue Officer Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri .. Respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1280 of 2026 P RAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31515 of 2015. For Appellant(s) : Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar for Mr.S.P.Meenakshi Sundharam For Respondent(s) : Mr.K.Kumaran Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) This intra-Court appeal assails the order of the writ Court dated 04.09.2025 made in W.P.No.31515 of 2015, whereby the challenge to the order of the first respondent came to be rejected. 2.Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the writ petition was listed for final hearing after a long time which was not noticed and in the absence of the counsel, the writ petition was heard and dismissed without adverting to the merits of the case and therefore, sought for a remand to allow the appellants to agitate their grievance before the writ Court. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1280 of 2026 3.Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that even in the enquiry before the first respondent, notice was not properly served and sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the appellants’ mother and when the order of the first respondent is liable to be set aside on that sole ground, still, the writ petition has been dismissed without considering the violation of principles of natural justice. By the impugned order of the first respondent, the name has been directed to be removed from patta No.732, without affording proper opportunity which is arbitrary and unsustainable. 4.Per contra, Mr.K.Kumaran, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submitted that sufficient opportunities have been afforded to the appellants’ mother, and the statement and claim made was considered in detail by the first respondent, only pursuant to which, the claim came to be rejected by a detailed speaking order. Further, when the patta was issued under the settlement proceedings in favour of the temple based on the admission of the appellants’ grandfather, the appellants cannot be allowed to claim a right which even their grandfather was not possessing. Only on consideration of these aspects, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, which needs no interference. Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1280 of 2026 5.Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record. 6.The appellants’ mother made a claim over the lands measuring 3.36 acres and 0.47 acres in S.F.Nos.180 and 220/2, respectively, at Kothukondapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. According to the appellants’ mother, she and her predecessor-in-title are the lawful owners and the lands were minor inam lands covered under T.D.No.487 and during the ryotwari settlement under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 30 of 1963”), these lands were taken up for settlement. However, during the settlement proceedings, the patta was wrongly allowed in favour of Arulmigu Venkataramanasami Koil. 7.The claim was considered by the first respondent. Notices were issued to the appellants’ mother for hearing and in spite of the service being completed, the appellants’ mother did not choose to appear for the enquiry. The Executive Officer of the temple https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1280 of 2026 participated in the enquiry and submitted all the relevant records. The claim along with the detailed statements submitted by the appellants’ mother and the report of the second respondent along with the documents produced by the temple were considered by the first respondent. 8.From the records, it is to be noted that the properties were originally devadayam minor inam lands covered under T.D.No.487. The lands were taken over by the Government under the provisions of Act 30 of 1963 and the Settlement Officer conducted enquiry. Mr.H.R.Venkatarangachari, grandfather of the appellants had appeared before the Settlement Tahsildar-I, Salem and he had categorically admitted that the temple owns both warams and had deposed that the ryotwari patta may be granted in the name of the temple itself. 9.The appellants’ grandfather being the poojari of the temple had admitted the rights of both warams of the temple for the above referred properties and consented for grant of patta in the name of the temple. Based on the statement and the enquiry conducted, the Settlement Officer, by order dated 24.07.1968, allowed ryotwari patta https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1280 of 2026 under Section 11 read with Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1963. As such, the ryotwari patta issued in favour of the temple by the Settlement Tahsildar stood in the name of Arulmigu Venkataramanasami Koil under patta No.388. After the UDR Scheme was introduced, the said temple patta was registered under patta No.732 in the name of the temple. Further, the lands have been leased to individuals by the temple for cultivation to raise income for the temple. While so, it seems that after the demise of Mr.H.R.Venkatarangachari, the appellants’ mother has somehow managed to get a name included in the patta by recording as, ‘S.Anandalakshmi for the time being for Arulmigu Venkataramanasami Koil’. Based on this entry in the patta, the appellants’ mother sought for issuance of patta for the lands of the temple. 10.The first respondent had considered all the materials in detail and came to the conclusion that when the appellants’ grandfather had admitted the rights of the temple over the land and based on his consent, patta was issued in the name of the temple under settlement proceedings, the appellants’ mother has no locus standi to question the settlement proceedings, contrary to the admissions made by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1280 of 2026 then poojari, her father. The first respondent also on verification of the records had observed that in the A-Register, still the records in patta No.732 stands in the name of the temple and only in the computerised chitta, the appellant was able to manipulate to include the name of ‘S.Anandalakshmi as manager for the time being of the temple’, an act which is directly contrary to the order passed in the final settlement enquiry. However, in the minor inams chitta maintained by the Village Administrative Officer, the name of the pattadhar is recorded as Venkataramanasami Koil. 11.When admittedly the appellants’ grandfather had participated in the settlement proceedings conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar under Act 30 of 1963 and had admitted that the temple owns both warams of the properties and based on his admission, patta under the settlement proceedings came to be issued in the name of the temple as early as in the year 1968, the appellants’ mother or the appellants cannot make any claim more than what her father/their grandfather was possessing, that too, pursuant to the admission and statement given by the appellants’ grandfather himself. Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1280 of 2026 12.When under the settlement proceedings, patta has been issued only in the name of the temple and from the year 1968 it continues to remain, the mere manipulation of the appellants’ mother in getting a name included in the computerised chitta alone, would not give any right to the appellants’ mother/appellants to seek for patta in the temple lands. Having considered the materials in detail and after conducting a detailed enquiry, the first respondent has passed a reasoned order directing deletion of the name of ‘S.Anandalakshmi’ and to restore the patta as per the village A-Register and the settlement order. 13.The learned Single Judge after considering all the materials had rightly rejected the challenge made to the order of the first respondent and we see no error or infirmity in the order and findings arrived at warranting interference. 14.Accordingly, writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 04.06.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No gya https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1280 of 2026 To 1.The Commissioner of Land Administration (CLA) Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005 2.The District Revenue Officer Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1280 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN , J. gya W.A.No.1280 of 2026 04.06.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis