(Order of the Court was made by THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Heard Mrs. Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this writ petition, Mr. R. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
2. The petitioner is a Church situated in Vembar Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. The first respondent is a Temple situated in the same village, the second respondent is the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti in Tuticorin District, the third respondent is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District and the fourth respondent is the Sub Inspector of Police, Soorangudi Police Station, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. In this writ petition, the Petitioner prays that the order passed by the second respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin District dated 24.12.2008 be quashed and set aside.
3. The short facts leading to this writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner Church is claiming an access over a small pathway of about 109 feet of length going from the Panchayat road in that village. The first respondent / Temple is claiming the alleged pathway to be part of its property in its own right. There have been several proceedings between the parties with respect to this pathway all these years. To begin with, a suit in O.S.No.55 of 1988 was filed way back in the year 1988 in the Court of District Munsif, Kovilpatti, which ultimately was carried upto the High Court, leading to the Judgment of this Court dated 05.11.1997 in S.A.No.277of 1993. The dispute in that suit was in respect of the property described in the third schedule. The learned Single Judge, who decided the Second Appeal, in paragraph 16 of the said Judgment considered the evidence of P.W.1, who was examined as the Member of the Committee of C.S.I. Church, who admitted that the Hindu Community of the village are claiming the suit property and that the property lying to the South of the Suit Property belonged to the Hindu Community. After referring to this evidence, the learned Single Judge gave a finding as follows:-
"Therefore, from this admission, it is clear that the alleged pathway also forms part of the land belonging to the Hindu Community".
4. Mrs. Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice the Report of the Commissioner, which was placed in that proceedings. From that, it is clear that the pathway in question lies to the South of the suit property, which was the property as described in the third schedule and this is how the finding has been given by the learned Single Judge. That finding of the learned Single Judge has remained undisturbed all these years.
5. It is pertinent to note that subsequently, another Civil Suit in O.S.No. 48 of 1999 on the file District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam was filed by the petitioner Church to restrain some members of the Hindu Community from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the visitors of the Church of the alleged pathway. The said suit was dismissed for default on 08.10.2003. The respondents therein filed a counter claim against the Petitioner Church, seeking not to disturb their peaceful enjoyment of the pathway and that counter claim was decreed by the same order.
6. After all these proceedings, the first respondent / Temple moved for patta on that portion, which the petitioner Church is claiming to be a pathway. The original authority granted the application made by the first respondent / Temple. The petitioner carried the matter in Revision and the said Revision was allowed. The first respondent / Temple carried the matter to the High Court, which interfered with the order of the Revisional authority and sent back the matter to Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed an order holding that it is a pathway. As against the said order, the first respondent / Temple has filed a Revision, which is pending before the District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin District.
7. Thereafter it so happened, that during Christmas 2008, the first respondent / Temple made a grievance that the Petitioner Church is trying to encroach on the pathway and to illuminate the same. The first respondent / Temple filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.12186 of 2008, on which a learned Single Judge passed an order on 22.12.2008, directing that the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned shall look into the matter and do the needful immediately as per law. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 24.12.2008, which permitted the petitioner Church to have an access through the pathway, but directed that they should not illuminate the pathway in any manner whatsoever. This is an interim order, pending the determination of the first respondent / Temple's claim for patta over that pathway.
8. Mrs. Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Petitioner Church should be permitted to illuminate the said pathway during this Christmas period, as against which the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / Temple pointed out that as already held by this Court, the said pathway is part of the property of the first respondent / Temple, though that submission is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the Petitioner has an access to the Church through the adjoining school property, which belongs to the Church and for that also, he relies upon the finding given by the learned Single Judge in S.A.No.277 of 1993 dated 05.11.1997. In paragraph 16 of the Judgment, the learned Single Judge, in terms, held that the Petitioner Church has an access in the front through which they can go to Periyasamypuram to reach the school and enter through the back portion of the school. The Sketch produced before us also shows that from the Church, there is access to the Periyasamypuram road through the school which belongs to the Church.
9. On a query, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that looking into the controversies over these years and taking into consideration the interest of both the parties, the order has been passed by the second respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, permitting the petitioner Church to have access during the Christmas period though without permitting any illumination, which would lead to create any right on the pathway and the said order should not be disturbed. He would further submit that it is necessary to maintain the law and order particularly during the Christmas period.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent / Temple as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 to
4.
11. The fact remains that there is a clear finding of this Court in S.A.No.277 of 1993 in favour of the first respondent / Temple. Yet, the Petitioner Church is trying to canvass their claim over this pathway. Considering this position, the second respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer has passed an order, which will meet the ends of justice. The immediate requirement is to permit the Petitioner Church during Christmas to have an access through the pathway, but not to permit any illumination so as to lead to claim any right over the pathway. In our view, the order of the second respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer is just and proper and we find no reason to interfere with the same. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Mrs. Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes a request that the proceedings which are pending before the District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin District may be expedited. The said request is a legitimate one.
13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are also dismissed. We expect the District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin District to expedite and dispose of the proceedings pending between the parties on merits and in accordance with law at the earliest.
sd/-
To:
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.
3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Soorangudi Police Station, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.