Partly allowed

Sri Piraliamman Temple v. the Assistant Settlement

Madras HC6 Apr 2022WP/11344/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a writ petition under Article 226, challenged an order granting Ryotwari patta to individual respondents. The Court held that land granted as Maniyam to a temple entitles the temple to Ryotwari patta under Section 8(2)(ii). It quashed the patta grant to individuals and directed its restoration to the temple, though the petition itself was dismissed due to lack of locus

What did the court decide?

The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 20.02.2012 granting Ryotwari patta to respondents was quashed. A direction was issued to restore the patta in the name of the Piraliamman Temple wit

Sri Piraliamman Temple Vs the Assistant Settlement — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.04.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

Writ Petition No.11344 of 2012 & M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2012

¶6

Sri Piraliamman Temple Marchanaickenpalayam Pollachi Taluk Coimbatore District Rep. By Fit Person ... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

The Assistant Settlement Officer (South)

¶9

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶10

The Minor Inams Tribunal

¶11

(Subordinate Judge)

¶12

Pollachi

¶13

Nachimuthu

¶14

Annammal

¶15

Nataraj

¶16

Palanisamy

¶17

Moorthy

¶18

Nataraj

¶19

Maragatham

¶20

Kavitha

¶21

Sagunthala

¶22

Annapoorani

¶23

L.Pushpaveni

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

Venkateshwari 15. Vasudevan 16. Vijayalakshmi 17. Sivakami 18. Thailasamy 19. Ganapathiammal 20. Mayakrishnan 21. Vasuki 22. Prabu 23. Santhi 24. Manikandan 25. Kamalakannan 26. Magudeeswari 27. Kosaladevi D/O.Kuppusamy Respondents 3-27 Represented by V.S.Baba Ramesh, Power of Attorney Agent, VPS Pannai, Sethumadai Post, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District. 28. Assistant Commissioner HR & CE Department, Coimbatore-641 018. 29. The Tahsildar, Pollachi, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents

¶26

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the 1st Respondent with reference to the order dated 20.02.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.I 2/5710/2011 and quash the same.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr. R.T.Doraisamy For R-1 & R-29 : Mr. Senthil Selvi, Government Advocate For R-3 to R-27 : Mr. D.Krishna Pradeep for Mr. N.Damodaran

¶29

For R-2 : Tribunal For R-28 : No Appearance

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Challenging the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer in Na.Ka No.I 2/5710/2011 dated 20.02.2012, a person claiming himself as fit person and Executive Officer has filed the Writ Petition on behalf of the temple.

¶32

From the reading of the impugned order, it is noted that the HR & CE department was impleaded as a respondent. The Deputy Commissioner of the HR & CE department in his written statement has categorically stated that the petitioner temple does not fall under the control of the HR & CE Department and the land for which the Ryotwari patta was granted was given in support of the petitioner temple as Maniyam. He would further contend that the respondents were not in possession of the land for over 60 years as required under Sec. 8(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and therefore they are not entitled to patta. The Assistant Settlement Officer after recording the statement of Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE Department has invoked Section 8 (2)(ii) and granted Ryotwari patta in favour of the Respondents 3 to 27 on payment of 20 times of the fair rent, in installments or in lump sum.

¶33

● A reading of Section 8 of 'Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963' clearly spells out that, “every person who is lawfully entitled to the kudivaram in an inam land immediately before the appointed day whether such person is an inamdar or not shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of that land”.

¶34

Sub Section 2 of Section 8 specifies that not withstanding anything contend in HR & CE Act and other Acts, “a person who is holding Iruwaram Minor Inam Lands granted for the support of maintenance of Religious Institutions or for the

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

performance of chairty or service can apply for patta subject to conditions”.

¶37

● Clause 1 of Sub Section 2 specifies that, “in the case the Land was transferred by way of sale, the transferee who proves his possession of such land for a continuous period of 60 years immediately before 1^st day of April, 1960, shall be entitled to Ryotwari patta in respect of that land”.

¶38

Sub Clause (b) of Clause 1 specifies that, “a person who proves himself to be in possession for a continuous period of 12 years immediately before 1^st day of April, 1960, can apply for patta on payment of a prescribed amount equal to 20 times the difference between the fair rent as contained in the Schedule and the Land Revenue due on such land”.

¶39

Sub Clause (2) of Sub Section (ii) specifies that, “ in case of any other land, the institution or the individual rendering service shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, he is entitled to Ryotwari patta in respect of that land”. The word 'any other land' specifies land which is not given to any religious institution for support or maintenance.

¶40

In the instant case it is clearly stated in the order issued by the Settlement Tahsildar-I, Gobichettipalayam, in his proceedings S.R.No. 446/1968/M.I. Act.30/1963/Pollachi Taluk, dated 27.09.1968, that the land was granted as Maniyam to Peraliamman temple at Marchinaickanpalayam village and the grant was confirmed to the said religious institution. It is further stated the kudivaram right vests in the temple. It is also stated, no portion of the land in question has been set apart for the common use of the villagers.

¶41

This order clearly grants Ryotwari patta in favour of Peraliamman temple under Section 8(2)(ii) read with Section 11 of Madras Minor Inam (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. Therefore, the Religious Institution was granted patta under Sub clause (2) of Sub section (2) (8). The Poojaris representing the temple are entitled to maintain the land and support the Temple from the income derived from it. They are not entitled to get Ryotwari patta in their name after paying 20 times of the fair rent. Therefore, the grant of Ryotwari patta in favour of respondents 3 to 27 by the 1^st respondent in his order Na.Ka No.I 2/5710/2011 dated 20.02.2012 is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 20.12.2012 is hereby quashed. A direction is given to the 1^st respondent to restore the patta in the name of Piraliamman Temple Marchanaickenpalayam, Pollachi Taluk, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

The patta shall stand in the name of the religious institution represented by the hereditary poojaris or legal heirs. Nobody has any right to alienate the property in violation of the grant made in the year 1968. Since it is found that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed with the directions issued above. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶44

Post the matter for reporting compliance on 25.07.2022.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶47

//True Copy//

¶48

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶49

sha/kpr