Dismissed

Mr. Sudheshwaran v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Jun 2022WP/6440/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of ryotwari patta granted to archakas on Devadayam temple lands, after their legal heirs sold the lands to the writ petitioners, was challenged. The court held the grant was a service inam held only so long as puja service was rendered, that alienation was impermissible, and dismissed the writ petitions, granting liberty to seek lease from the HR & CE Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; petitioners granted liberty to submit a representation to the 6th respondent seeking lease of the lands, to be considered in accordance with law.

Mr. Sudheshwaran Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on Pronounced on 28.04.2022 06.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P. NOS.6440, 6918, 6445, 4692, 4693, 4908, 7454, 6914, 6909 & 4620 OF 2022 AND W.M.P. NOS.4811 TO 4816, 5053, 4740, 4741, 6534, 6539, 7460, 7461, 7463, 6948, 6946, 6536, 6541, 4811, 5057, 6532, 5056, 6540, 6950 TO 6954, 6956, 6947 & 4742 OF 2022 Sudheshwaran ..Petitioner in W.P.NO.6440 OF 2022 Vasantha ..Petitioner in W.P.No.6918 of 2022 James ..Petitioner in W.P.No.6445 of 2022 Munirathinam ..Petitioner in W.P.No.4692 of 2022 Rajan Babu ..Petitioner in W.P.No.4693 of 2022 P.Senthilkumar ..Petitioner in W.P.No.4908 of 2022 Dhanaseelan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.7454 of 2022 Suventhiran ..Petitioner in W.P.No.6914 of 2022 Premkumar ..Petitioner in W.P.No.6909 of 2022 Murugan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.4620 of 2022

¶6

Vs -

¶7

The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 705.

¶8

The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 705.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri Division Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 701.

¶10

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

¶11

4. The Tahsildar Palacode Taluk Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 808.
5. The Village Administrative Officer Jakkasamudram Village Palacode Taluk Dharmapuri Dt. 636 808.
6. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Uthamar Gandhi Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034.
7. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Kottai Mariamman Temple Salem 636 001.
8. The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dharmapuri 636 701.
9. The Executive Officer Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Palacode Dharmapuri District 636 808.
10. The District Registrar Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 701. ...Respondents in All WPs
Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records in
pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.01.2022 on the file of the 2^ndrespondent/District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri, in connection with the impugned order of cancellation of patta in her proceedings in Na.Ka. No.15881/2019/Pa2 dated 11.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue
patta in the name of the petitioner within the time limit fixed by this Court.

¶12

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

¶13

For Petitioners: Mr. C.Umashankar (in all Wps)

¶14

For Respondents: Mr.P.Sathish, AGP for RR-1 to 5 Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Spl. GP For RR-6 to 9 (in all Wps)

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

The cancellation of patta, which had been granted in favour of the respective petitioners upon purchase of the lands from the legal heirs of the original pattadars, on the premise that the lands in issue are ‘Devadayam’ lands and that it belongs to the ‘Arulmighu Adhinarayanaswamy Temple’ passed by the 2 nd respondent, viz., District Revenue Officer, has been put to test before this Court in the present batch of writ petitions.

¶17

2.The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions, as could be culled out from the present petitions, are as under :- The Government, in exercise of the powers under the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (for short ‘the Act’), had taken over the lands covered by T.D. No.543 on 15.2.1965 and as a result of the taking over, the inam tenure stood extinguished and the lands stood converted into ryotwari. Since no claim was made with regard to the said lands on the basis of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965, suo motu enquiry was initiated by the Settlement Officer pursuant to which notices were duly served on the interested parties and conduct of the enquiry led to the Settlement Officer granting patta to one Ramanuja Iyer and Doraisamy Iyer jointly on the condition that the said persons and their successors, in order to hold the land permanently, should render puja service to Sri Athinarayanaswamy Temple continuously. The said settlement patta was granted by the Settlement Officer vide proceedings in S.R. No.307 dated 1.6.1968.

¶18

3.Based on the said patta granted to the aforesaid individuals, the subject lands were alienated by the legal heirs of the said original pattadars, viz., Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer for the purpose of off-setting their personal requirement in favour of the petitioners herein. When the pattas were in the name of the subsequent purchasers, viz., the petitioners herein, out of blue, the 2 nd respondent had taken action suo motu and issued notice calling upon the petitioners to appear for enquiry and after recording the statements of the respective petitioners, the impugned order cancelling the patta has been passed and reverting the patta in the name of Adhinarayanaswamy Temple and relevant entries in the revenue records were also changed without the copy being served on the

¶19

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

¶20

petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2 nd respondent, which is impugned herein, the present petitions have been filed for quashment and for consequential direction to grant patta in favour of the petitioners.

¶21

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the pattas have been cancelled on the premise that the families of Duraisamy Iyer and Ramanuja Iyer, who were granted ryotwari patta, have alienated the property in violation of the conditions of the patta dated 1.6.1968.

¶22

5.It is the submission of the learned counsel that though the lands in question are admittedly ‘Devadayam’, the archakas aforesaid were granted ryotwari patta and the only condition imposed is that they and their legal heirs shall continue to render puja servie to the temple and deities. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that it is not disputed by the respondents that the legal heirs of the original pattadars are still doing puja in the temple even today and that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is not providing any fund for the day to-day administration of the temple and conduct f puja and that money for the day to-day affairs of the temple, including performance of puja is being shelled out by the archakas. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that to meet the expenses of the temple as also the livelihood of the archakars, the lands, which were given by way of conditional patta, were alienated in pieces.

¶23

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the only condition imposed in the patta is that the persons to whom the patta is given should render puja service to Sri Adinarayanaswamy Temple in Ambayanamadam and there is no condition or prohibition pertaining to alienation in the order dated 1.6.1968 in and by which patta was granted in favour of the individuals.

¶24

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even prior to the grant of patta, both the warams were with the archakas of the temple. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that if there is violation in the service inam by the patta holder, Rule 19 contemplates the conduct of enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is the further submission that the UDR patta granted to the petitioners in the year 1987, after taking note of the entire materials. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, being a party to the settlement proceedings in the year 1968 was well aware that there was no condition or prohibition for alienation and no appeal having filed against the same, the said order passed in 1968 granting conditional patta to the archakas had attained finality and in

¶25

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

¶26

such a backdrop, the 2 nd respondent has got no power to conduct enquiry and pass the impugned order cancelling the patta and reverse the patta back to the temple as the enquiry itself is defective and conducted by an authority without jurisdiction. Further, notice as contemplated under Rule 19 has not been issued.

¶27

8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the impugned order has not been served on the petitioners and the name of the temple in the patta has been changed within a period of 24 hours and without enquiry and questioning the archakas, the said order has been passed, though the archakas are continuing their service by doing puja service even as on date.

¶28

9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the reliance placed on Section 6 (17) and 41 of the HR & CE Act are not applicable to the case on hand as the said sections pertains to stoppage of service in the temple. But in the case on hand, even as on date there is no stoppage of service and, therefore, the provisions do not stand attracted. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the patta being a personal patta granted in favour of the archakas for the purpose of performing continuous puja to Sri Adinarayanaswamy Temple, which is being continued as on date, the alienation cannot be an issue as the condition for the patta is being observed in letter and spirit by the archakas and, therefore, the suo motu action of the 2 nd respondent in cancelling the patta, without appreciating all the aforesaid contentions is wholly erroneous and unsustainable and the petitions deserve to be allowed.

¶29

10. To buttress the above contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :-

¶30

i) Sennimalai Gounder & 12 Ors. – Vs – Addl. District Magistrate & Ors.(2019 (4) CTC 341); ii) Ramasamy & Ors. – Vs – Tamilvel & Ors. (CDJ 2017 MHC 8018); and iii) A.Radhakrishnan – Vs – Secretary to Govt. & Ors. (W.P. No.13589/2021 – Dated 11.8.2021)

¶31

11.Learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5, placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondent by the 4 th respondent, submitted that the subject lands, by way of donation by the village, vested with the temple deity, Sri Adinarayanaswamy, even as early as in the year 1862. It is the further submission that the subject lands were originally managed by Ambayana Madam and that there exists no hereditary trustee or hereditary pujaris appointed for the temple and that the subject lands were classified as ‘Devadayam Inam Lands’. Based on the

¶32

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

¶33

request of the archakas of Adinarayanaswamy temple, individuals were assigned conditional ryotwari patta were granted to the individuals with condition to carry out pujas at the temple. In effect, the archakas were given pattas for the temple land was on the condition that they perform the pujas continuously to the Presiding Deity and any infraction would result in the cancellation of the said patta. This itself clearly shows that alienation is prohibited and that the lands are to be strictly used for the benefit of the temple. The alienation by the legal heirs of the original pattadars is in stark violation of the conditions of grant of ryotwari patta.

¶34

12.It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the legal heirs of the original pattadars had violated the conditions not only by alienating the lands, but also by not maintaining the temple and doing the puja service to the Presiding Deity, which resulted in the take over of the temple maintenance by the HR & CE Department over the past 15 years.

¶35

13.It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the violation having been brought to the notice of the 1 st respondent by the 6 th respondent, which resulted in appropriate action taken by the 2 nd respondent at the directions of the 1 st respondent and that too after following the due principles of law, resulting in cancellation of the ryotwari patta cannot be held to be arbitrary.

¶36

14.It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that patta merely grants possessory rights to the person and does not confer title and the temple, being the title holder of the lands, on being donated, once the temple is taken over by the Government under the HR & CE Act, by virtue of Section 6 (17) r/w 41 of the HR & CE Act, no person can claim title over the subject lands and all the lands would vest with temple. It is therefore the submission of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the infraction of the condition together with the failure to perform the service, which was the mandatory condition for grant of ryotwari patta in the name of the individual has led to the cancellation of the said patta and reverting the patta back to Adinarayanaswamy temple and the said act of the 2 nd respondent cannot be found fault with and accordingly prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶37

15.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 6 to 9, while relying on the counter filed by the 9 th respondent and also reiterating the submissions made on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, in addition, submitted that the inam lands covered by T.D. No.543, by way of an unenfranchised grant, was granted towards the support of the Sri Adinarayanaswamy

¶38

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

¶39

Temple and that the lands were managed by the archakas in their individual capacity and not as a hereditary trustee of the temple, as is evident from the order granting patta in favour of the archakas on certain conditions.

¶40

16.It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that even in the original inam registers, the names of the original grantee has been recorded as Adinarayanaswamy and that the lands have been classified as ‘Devadayam’, which has been confirmed by the Inam Commissioner. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader though service tenure grant has been granted to the pujaris for rendering puja service, but the whole grant is subject to their doing puja service and, therefore, alienation is impermissible, as the continuance of occupation is dependent on the archakas doing puja service to the Presiding Deity.

¶41

17.It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that Section 6 (17) of the HR & CE Act defines “Religious Endowment” or “Endowment” and Explanation (1) and (2) appended to Section 6 (17) clearly shows that any inam granted to an archaka, service holder or other employee of a religious institution for the performance of any service or charity in or connected with a religious institution shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, service holder or employee but shall be deemed to be a religious endowment. In such a backdrop, it is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the patta granted to the archaka is for doing service to the Presiding Deity and that the said patta cannot be said to be a personal patta, which would confer a right on the archakas or their legal heirs to alienate the property.

¶42

18. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that Section 41 of the HR & CE Act clothes the Collector to resume the lands and in exercise of the said power and in view of the acts of the legal heirs of the original pattadars and the infractions caused by them, has led to the impugned order being passed, after following the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the said order cannot be said to be illegal and unsustainable and, accordingly prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶43

19. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Addl./Special Government Pleader appearing for the respective respondents and also perused the materials available on record as also the various provisions of law and the decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

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

¶45

20. Though certain decisions have been placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners stressing that the ratio laid down therein is applicable to the facts of this case, yet it is to be pointed out that the present case revolves around Section 21 of the Minor Inams Act, Sections 6 (17) of the HR & CE Act and also the proceedings in S.R. No.307 dated 1.6.1968, wherein the Settlement Officer has recorded findings for granting ryotwari patta in favour of the original pattadars viz., Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer. The decisions would be referred at the appropriate place.

¶46

21.Coming to the issue proper, there is no dispute that the lands are ryoti lands and that it was granted as inam to Arulmigu Adinarayanaswamy Temple in the year 1862. The inam register reveals the same, as is evidenced by the order passed by the Settlement Officer dated 1.6.1968 in S.R. No.307. In and by the said proceedings, patta has been granted in favour of Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer, the original pattadars on condition that they should render puja service to Sri Adinarayanaswamy Temple in Ambayanamadam Village.

¶47

22.There is no quarrel with regard to the said patta, but the only issue that is sought to be canvassed is that the patta granted is a personal patta and not a patta in favour of the Temple and that alienation is not prohibited and the only condition prescribed is that they should render puja service to Sri Adinarayanaswamy Temple.

¶48

23.To appreciate the said contention, it is but necessary to peruse the proceedings S.R. No.307 of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 1.6.1968, in and by which ryotwari patta was granted in favour of Ramanuja Iyer & Duraisamy Iyer. For better appreciation, the said proceedings is quoted hereunder :- “The suit lands specified in the schedule to this order are situated in Jekka samudram village in Krishnagiri Taulk in Dharmapuri District are minor inams covered by T.D.No.543.and taken over by the Government on 15.2.1965 under the Madras minor inams (abolition and conversion in to ryotwari) Act 1963. As a result of the taking over the inam tenure-has been extinguished and the lands stand converted in to ryotwari. Nobody has preferred any claim for patta in respect of these lands as provided for in the rules framed under the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and conversion in to Ryotwari) Rules 1965. Suo motu enquiry was therefore taken up by me on the basis of materials gathered and furnished by the field staff to decide whether anybody is entitled to

¶49

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

¶50

ryotwari patta. Notices were duly served on the interested parties and published in the village as prescribed in the rules. A notice was also served on the Assistant commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem.

¶51

Thiru Ramanuja Iyer was examined as P.W.1. His evidence is that he and Thiru. Duraisamy Iyer are the pujaris cum hereditary managers of Sri Adinarayanasamy temple in Ambayanamadam village. The inam lands were granted to their ancestors for performance of puja to the temple. They are managing the lands in their individual capacity and not as hereditary managers of the temple. He adds that their predecessor used to perform puja service and owned the lands with both warms by succession that they are willing to continue the performance of service to the temple to hold the inam lands permanently and that joint ryotwari patta may be granted to them. He filed the genealogical tree showing their hereditary pujariship of the above temple.

¶52

The karnam of the village was examined as C.W.1. His evidence in that the inam lands are covered by T.D.No.543 an unenfranchised grant, granted for the support of Sri Adinarayanasamy temple land in S.No.264 of Jakkasamudram village. He adds that the inam lands are being managed by P.W.1 and his copujari in their individual capacity and not as hereditary manager of the temple that P.W. 1 and Thiru Duraisamy Iyer are the pujaris of the temple that they own both warams and that ryotwari patta may be granted to them subject to render puja service.

¶53

The point for determination is whether the grant is in favour of the temple or a grant in favour of the ancestors of the present pujaris of the temple. In the village Ambayanamadam, there is a temple dedicated to the worship of Sri Athinarayanasamy. The only record available in this case in the ancient document of Inam resister in respect of T.D.No. 1027 of Jekkasamudram village. At this stage, it may be useful to verify the ancient document of Inam register for the purpose. In the Inam proceedings which 1862, the description of the Inam was given as "Devadayam" in column 2 of the Inam register. From column 8 this is what we find for the support of Athinarayanasamy at Ambayanamadam-The temple is in good order". In column 14 it was recorded as "in T.1239- pujari Thimma - In F.

¶54

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

¶55

1248 ullaya". In column 16 and 17, the names and relationship of original grantee are recorded as - Adinarayanasamy Bsymaya Age 16 of Mahendramangalam". The final order of the Inam commissioner in column 22 was merely "confirmed". The use of the word "Devadayam" in column 2 of the Inam register is not decisive of the question whether the grant is to the temple or to an individual. We have to look into the entries in the other columns of the Inam register for the purpose. Another record available in this case is the original title deed granted by the Inam commissioner in respect of the above grant. It contains the recital in paragraph 2 is as "The Inam is conformed to you and to your successors tax free to be held without interference so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled". The Inam is no doubt for the benefit of the society. But from the specific recitals in the above ancient documents, it is obvious that it is a service tenure grant, granted to the ancestors of P.W.1 and his co-pujari for rendering puja service and that the suit land forms a grant in favour of the pujaris. The evidence of P.W. 1 and C.W. 1 would to show that P.W.1 predecessors had been in possession of the property and performing puja service in the temple and that their only had been enjoying the suit land and that they were hereditary trustees. I should therefore find having regard to the above two ancient documents that P.W.1 and Thiru. Duraisamy lyer had established the character of the grant as personal. P.W. 1 and his brother's son K. Duraisamy Iyer own both warams in the suit land. The evidence also disclose that they have been in continuous possession of the suit land that they have been rendering puja service to the temple of Sri Athinarayanasamy temple and that they are willing to continue the performance of service and to hold the suit land permanently. Thus in exercise of the powers delegated to me in GO.No.401 / Revenue dated 18.8.1965, I hold that Thiru Ramanuja Iyer (P.W.1) and Thiru Duraisamy Iyer are entitled to ryotwari patta under section 8(3) (ii) read with section 20(1) (2) and (3) of Act 30 of 1963. I accordingly allow ryotwari patta for the suit land is their names as per schedule below subject to the condition that they should render puja service to Sri Adinarayanasamy

¶56

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

¶57

temple in Ambayanamadam village R/o Jakkasamudram.”

¶58

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶59

24.There is no quarrel with the fact that during the lifetime of Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer the lands were not alienated and it was in their enjoyment and usage. However, the alienation was only after the entry of the legal heirs of the said persons into the picture.

¶60

25.True it is that there is no explicit prohibition imposed on alienation in the said proceedings. But, equally true it is that rights for alienation has also not been granted prescribing any particular period, but the condition that has been imposed for the patta to be carried on by the said archakas is that they should render puja service to Sri Adhinarayanaswamy Temple. However, there is a categorical finding by the Inam Commissioner with regard to the manner of holding wherein it has been stated as under :-

¶61

“The Inam is conformed to you and to your successors tax free to be held without interference so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled.”

¶62

26.In the aforesaid backdrop, an analysis of the proceedings in S.R. No.307 dated 1.6.1968 reveals that a careful scrutiny of the Inam Register was undertaken by the Settlement Officer which showed that in Column 16 and 17 of the said register, the names and relationship of the original grantee is recorded as Adinarayanasamy Bsymaya – Age 16 of Mahendramangalam. Further, in column 2, the word used is ‘Devadayam’. One other vital aspect, which is found in the said proceedings is the fact that the record relating to the original title deed granted by the Inam Commissioner in respect of the above grant, wherein, in paragraph 2 it has been recorded as “The Inam is conformed to you and to your successors tax free to be held without interference so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled”.

¶63

27.The Settlement Officer has recorded a further finding that it is a service tenure grant, granted to the ancestors of P.W.1, therein, viz., Ramanuja Iyer and his co-pujaris considering the puja service rendered to Adinarayanaswamy. Though the Settlement Officer had recorded a finding that the nature of grant is ‘personal’, however, it has been clearly stated that the said grant is subject to rendering puja service to Sri Adinarayanaswamy.

¶64

28.In this backdrop, the respondents contend that Section 6 (17) of the HR & CE Act, which defines “religious endowment” and

¶65

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

¶66

the explanation attached thereto would show that in respect of the lands, which have been granted as personal gift to the archaka, service holder or employee, it shall be deemed to be a religious endowment. Therefore, for all purposes, the personal grant, according to the respondents, is an enjoyable grant, at the wish of the Presiding Deity, which holds the patta, so long as the said archaka performs the service for which the grant has been given to the said archaka and it does not confer any title on the archaka to alienate the land and that alienation is not only impermissible, but it is also void. Further, it has also been submitted that patta does not confer title, but only possessory rights to the persons holding the patta. To appreciate the above, Section 6 (17) and the Explanation attached thereto are quoted hereunder for better clarity :-

¶67

(17) " religious endowment " or “endowment "

¶68

means all property belonging to or given or endowed for ''-e support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity ; and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof ; but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service-bolder or other employee of a religious institution ;

¶69

Explanation (I).- Any inam granted to an archaka, service-holder or other employee of a religious institution for the performance of any service or charity in or connected with a religious institution shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, servi ce-holder or employee but shall be deemed to be a religious endowment.

¶70

Explanation (2).-All 'property which belonged to, or was given or endowed for the support of a religious institution, or which was given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity shall be deemed to be a " religious endowment " or " endowment" within the meaning of this definition, notwithstanding that, before or after the date of the commencement of this Act, the religious institution has ceased to exist or ceased to be ' used as a place of religious worship or instruction or the service or charity has ceased to be performed :

¶71

Provided that this Explanation shall not be deemed to apply in respect of any property which

¶72

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

¶73

vested in any person before the 30^th September 1951, by the operation of the law of limitation.

¶74

29.There is no quarrel with the submission that patta does not confer title and that it only confers possession of the property at the hands of the individual holding the patta. Further, the explanation appended to Section 6 (17) clearly reveals that a ny inam granted to an archaka, service-holder or other employee of a religious institution for the performance of any service or charity in or connected with a religious institution shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the archaka, service-holder or employee but shall be deemed to be a religious endowment. In fine, even if any personal grant of patta is given to any person for rendering service to the Temple, such land would, in effect, be the property of the temple and not the individual. In effect, so long as the archaka renders service to the Presiding Deity in the Temple, he can enjoy the lands and that the lands should be used for the benefit of the temple. Therefore, the foremost requirement is that attendant to the archaka enjoying the land, the said enjoyment should have to enure to the benefit of the temple and in addition to performing puja service to the temple. Therefore, patta for any land, that is given even as personal grant to the archaka by any inam, would invariably be deemed to be a religious endowment for the benefit of the temple.

¶75

Further, Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, which relates to “Service Inams” too has a bearing on this case and for better appreciation, the said provision is extracted hereunder:-

¶76

“21. Service inams. - (1) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of any minor inam which was held immediately before the appointed day by an individual (hereinafter referred to in this section as the serviceholder) on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution.

¶77

(2) The service-holder shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be bound to continue to render the service after the appointed day.

¶78

(3) (i) Where a service-holder is entitled to a ryotwari patta under section 8 in respect of any land, he shall have the option -

¶79

(a) either to pay to the religious institution the amount specified in subsection (4) and on such payment the land shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (7), be discharged from the condition of the service; or

¶80

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

¶81

(b) to hold the land and continue to render service subject to the provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2), (6) and (7).

¶82

(ii) The option referred to in clause (i) shall be twenty times the difference between the fair rent in respect of such land determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule and the land revenue due on such land.

¶83

(5) Where the service-holder has exercised his option to pay the amount specified in sub-section (4), the tasdik allowance referred to in subsection (6) in respect of the period subsequent to the date of the exercise of such option shall be the absolute property of the institution and the institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangements as it thinks fit for the performance of the service.

¶84

(6) (a) For so long as the service-holder renders the service, the institution shall pay to the service-holder the tasdik allowance paid by the Government under section 20.

¶85

(b) If the service-holder fails to render the service, the prescribed officer shall, after such inquiry and after such notice to the serviceholder as may be prescribed in this behalf, notify such failure in such manner as may be prescribed. He shall then declare that the tasdik allowance payable to the institution in respect of the period subsequent to the failure shall be the absolute property of the institution and the institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangement as it thinks fit for the performance of the service.

¶86

(7) (a) For so long as the service-holder renders the service, he shall be entitled to occupy permanently the lands in respect of which he is entitled to a patta under section 8, subject however, to the payment of the assessment fixed [under section 16 or section 16-A, as the case may be], in respect of such lands.

¶87

(b) If the service-holder fails to render the service, the prescribed officer shall, after such inquiry and after such notice to the serviceholder as may be prescribed in this behalf, notify such failure in such manner as may be prescribed. He shall then declare that the service-holder's right to occupy permanently the land under clause (a) shall cease and determine, and the institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangement as it thinks fit for the

¶88

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

¶89

performance of the service and shall be entitled to hold the land as its absolute property subject, however, to the payment of the assessment fixed therefor [under section 16 or section 16-A, as the case may be] .

¶90

Explanation I. - For the purposes of this section, -

¶91

(i) service-holder includes his heirs; (ii) non-performance of the service due to illness or other temporary disability shall not be deemed to be failure to render service, provided that the service-holder makes alternative arrangements for rendering the service during the period of such illness or of other temporary disability.

¶92

Explanation II. - For the purposes of subsection (4), "land revenue" means the ryotwari assessment including the additional assessment, water-cess and additional water-cess. ”

¶93

From the above provision, it is abundantly clear that in respect of service inams, for the purpose of discharge from the condition of service, either the amount towards the land as specified in sub-section 3 (i) (a) should be paid else the pattadar should continue to hold the land and do service as per the condition prescribed under sub-section 3 (i) (b).

¶94

In the aforesaid backdrop, a careful perusal of the proceedings of the Settlement Officer in S.R. No.307 dated 1.6.1968, it is clear that the condition prescribed is that the patta is granted subject to the condition that the pattadars should continue to do service to Arulmighu Adinarayanaswamy Temple.

¶95

There is no quarrel that the original pattadars, viz., Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer, true to the condition and undertaking relating to grant of patta, had held the land and had abide by the condition and rendered puja service to Adinarayanaswamy Temple. Only after their demise, the legal heirs of the original pattadars had sold the lands to the petitioners herein.

¶96

34. While granting the patta, the Settlement Officer has recorded a finding that it is a tenure grant and that the patta granted is personal in nature. Further, a finding is also recorded based on the deposition of the Karnam that the inam lands are covered by T.D.No.543 and is an unenfranchised grant, granted for the support of Sri Adinarayanasamy temple and that the original title document show that the inam is conformed to the original pattadars and their successors tax free to be held

¶97

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

¶98

without interference so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled.

¶99

A careful scrutiny of the above findings and the import of the said finding stares writ large on the face of record that the so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled, the patta and the usage of the lands would rest with the original pattadars and their successors. The question that arises in this situation is “if the lands are alienated and, thereafter, if the successors failed to perform the condition, what would be the effect of the patta granted in favour of the original pattadars and the status of the lands”.

¶100

The situation, as envisaged above, would only frustrate the grant of patta, as the Presiding Deity at the Adinarayanaswamy Temple will be stripped of the subject property and would also be left unattended without any puja being performed. Therefore, if the safety and the security of the property of the Presiding Deity at Adinarayanaswamy Temple is to be safeguarded, the only inference that could be drawn from the condition is that the lands should never be alienated by the pattadars and so long as they continue to do puja service to Adinarayanaswamy Temple, the lands could be enjoyed by the original pattadars and their successors and any failure to discharge the condition of doing puja service, would revert the patta in favour of Adinarayanaswamy Temple. In fact, the very wordings of the order of the Inam Commissioner based on the original title deed, it can very safely be concluded that alienation is strictly prohibited and that the patta is only granted towards enjoyment while doing puja service and not otherwise.

¶101

37. Further, what clinches the issue more to show that alienation is prohibited in respect of the patta granted to Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer is the fact that the recording of the Inam Commissioner, as has been extracted above, show that the pattadars and their successors would be entitled to hold the lands tax free without interference so long as they render puja service to Adinarayanaswamy Temple. The use of the word ‘held’ clearly signifies the fact that the holding of the lands is intricately connected to the puja service to be rendered by the pattadars and their successors and any deviation of the condition in rendering puja service would result in the reversal of the patta back to Adinarayanaswamy Temple.

¶102

Further, one other important fact, which requires to be noted at this point is the fact that the lands are to be utilized by the pattadars to meet out the expenses towards the puja service performed at the Adinarayanaswamy Temple. Therefore, it is clear that the benefits derived from the lands

¶103

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

¶104

should be used exclusively for the purpose of the temple and it is not for nurturing the pattadars and helping them out with the predicaments faced by the successors of the original pattadars in their familial life.

¶105

However, a bare perusal of the sale deeds, in and by which the lands have been purchased by the petitioners show that the said lands have been alienated by the legal heirs of the original pattadars for the purpose of settling their debts which has engulfed them and that the sale of the subject property is not for the purpose of meeting out the expenses of the temple. Only for feathering their nest, the legal heirs of the original pattadars have sold the lands to the petitioners and utilized the proceeds for their personal use and the proceeds have not been utilized for the expenses towards the service to be performed at the Adinarayanaswamy Temple. In the abovesaid backdrop, it has to be categorically held that the subject lands, for which patta has been granted to Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer, though in their individual capacity, are in fact, patta granted for performing certain prescribed service at Adinarayanaswamy Temple and that Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer and their successors would be entitled to hold the patta and enjoy the lands only so long as they continue doing puja service at the Adinarayanaswamy Temple. Any other construction other than the one given above, would grossly be against the intent and purport for which the grant has been given to Adinarayanasamy Temple.

¶106

40. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Sennimalai Gounder case (supra),by the petitioners, which is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is not in dispute that the patta granted herein are ryotwari pattas. In the aforesaid case, the patta was not based on any particular condition, however, in the present case, the lands even as early as in the year 1862, were given to the Temple, which was utilized by the archakas for the benefit of the temple and the Inam Commissioner had issued the pattas on condition to the archakas that till such time they perform puja service to Adinarayanaswamy, they would be entitled to hold the land. After the vesting of the lands in the Government on taking over under the Minor Inam Act, patta to the lands were granted in favour of the temple to Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer on condition that they and their successors hold the land till they do puja service to Adinarayanasamy. The decision in Palaniappa Pandaram & Ors. – Vs – Special Commissioner & Commissioner Land Administration & Ors. (1996 (1) CTC 217 (DB)), which has been relied on in the aforesaid decision, stands on similar facts as the present case and the relevant portion in the said decision is quoted hereunder :-

¶107

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

¶108

“4.Heard the learned Counsel on either side. The order of the learned single Judge is as well merited one not warranting any interference. As noticed by the learned single Judge, the statutory Authority has issued a ryotwari patta under a special enactment in favour of the deity. The nature of the grant which has been confirmed also is in favour of the temple. The proceedings by which the patta was issued in favour of the deity was subject to a statutory right of appeal before the concerned Sub Court constituted as a tribunal and thereafter a further appeal to a Division Bench of this Court and subject to such remedies as noticed above, the other granting patta is rendered final under the statute. Of course, this Court as well as the Apex Court have declared the position that even thereafter, the parties are at liberty to vindicate their respective claims before a civil court, if they so desire. So far as the facts on hand before us are concerned, the order granting patta in 1969 in favour of the deity remains in full force and effect and has not been also challenged. If that be the position, it was most improper on the part of the appellants who claim to be pujaris/service holders and also on the part of the Tahsildar, to order for the transfer of patta in favour of the appellants replying upon a provision which in our view, is totally irrelevant,Section 21 of the Act has relevance only to service inams and the grant, of the patta in the name of the deity and for the support of the Pagoda cannot be said to be a service inam. If the inam is really a service inam, Patta would have been granted only in favour of the service holders subject to the condition of performance of the service. It is only in such cases, there is scope for having recourse to Section 21 and not a case like the one concerned before us. That apart, the Regular Tahsildar of the Taluk under the Revenue side has no power to deal with claims under the special enactment in question. The patta granted in favour of the temple cannot be interfered with by the Tahsildar or any of the ordinary revenue authorities exercising their powers under the Revenue Standing Orders and the patta granted under the said Special enactment under a particular provision can, if at all, be interfered or modified only by the statutory authorities provided under the statute itself in

¶109

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

¶110

the manner and the extent provided therein. The District Revenue Officer has only set right the grave irregularity and the illegality committed by the appellants in connivance, as we are constrained to observe, with the Tahsildar, Perundurai relying uponsome irrelevant provisions for surreptitiously getting a transfer of patta in the name of the appellants, thereby denying the temple and the deity the lands and the title to a large extent and very valuable property. We are constrained to observe that the Tahsildar, Perundurai, has not only exceeded his limits, but has passed the order dated 21.1.1994 in gross abuse of his powers.

¶111

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶112

41.In the case on hand, as noticed in Palaniappa Pandaram’s case (supra), the lands were given to the Temple and in the year 1862, the Inam Commissioner had granted patta in favour of the temple to Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer on certain conditions, which has been reiterated by the Special Tahsildar, while granting the ryotwari patta. Therefore, when the lands are temple lands, which have been given under patta to the original pattadars for discharging certain service, the pattas would become inalienable and any alienation in contravention of the condition would be per se illegal.

¶113

42.Insofar as the decision in Ramasamy’s case (supra), it is the contention of the defendants therein that the amount as prescribed u/s 21 of the Minor Inams Act has been complied with. The Court hasgone into detail on Section 21 of the Minor Inams Act and held as under :-

¶114

“4. The defendants in both the suits entered

¶115

appearance and resisted the suit claim contending that the condition imposed in the order granting patta dated 03.11.1966 has been complied with and the amount directed to be paid by the grantees has already been paid. Therefore, the land is being enjoyed by the grantees without the liability to do service. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.

¶116

- * * * * *

¶117

The grievance of the defendant is that said claim has not been gone into by the trial court. No evidence has been let in either before the trial Court or the Lower Appellate Court on the merits of the rival contentions. Section 21 of

¶118

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

¶119

the Act which deals with the service Inams, provides as follows:-

¶120

Section 21 imposes an obligation on the service holder to continue to render service after the appointed day. The application of Section 21 is subject to the provisions of sub Section (3), which gives an option to the service holder to either pay the religious institution the amounts specified under sub Section (4) and on such payment have the obligation to render service discharged or to hold the land and continue to render service subject to the provisions contained under sub-sections (1) (2), (6) and (7). Sub Section (5) provides that when the service holder has exercised his option to pay the amount specified in sub-section (4), the tasdik allowance referred to in sub-section (6) in respect of the period subsequent to the date of the exercise of such option shall be the absolute property of the institution and the institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangements as it thinks fit for the performance of the service. Sub Section 7 provides that the service holder who has not exercised his option to pay the amount but so long as the service holder renders the service, he shall be entitled to occupy permanently the lands in respect of which he is entitled to a patta under Section 8, subject however, to the payment of the assessment fixed in respect of such lands.

¶121

Section 21 makes it clear that a procedure is prescribed under the Act itself to decide as to whether the service holder has in fact failed to render service and as a result of such failure, the right to occupy the land vested in by grant of patta. Rule 19 of the rules contemplate the procedure for the enquiry to be conducted under Section 21(7)(b). The Revenue Divisional Officer of the revenue division has been appointed as an authorised officer and elaborate procedure has been prescribed under the rules to conduct enquiry regarding the failure on the part of the service holder to do the service to the religious institutions. A combined reading of Section 21 as well as Rule 19 rules framed under the Act would show that the Act contemplates a particular procedure for arriving at a decision as to the

¶122

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

¶123

right of the service holder to be in occupation of the lands if the patta had been granted to him with the condition of performance of service. For the present, I am not going into the truth or otherwise of the claim of the defendants that they had paid the money payable under sub Section (4) of Section 21 and therefore, the land vested them absolutely. Since, it is the plaintiff's who plea that the defendants had not exercised their right to pay the amount or performed the service to the religious institution, I am proceeding on the assumption that the plaintiff's pleadings are correct. When a particular procedure is provided under particular enactment in deciding a particular issue, it is settled law that it can be done only in such a manner as contemplated. Section 46 of the Act provides for finality of the orders passed by the authorities.”

¶124

43.On a careful consideration of the decisions aforesaid, which have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it transpires that the said decision is not in any way useful to further the case of the petitioners as they stand on totally different platforms and cannot be pressed into service in support of the petitioners’ contentions.

¶125

44.Further, even for a passing moment, if the case of the petitioners are to be accepted that alienation is not prohibited under the patta granted to Ramanuja Iyer and Duraiswamy Iyer, and patta to the the lands being given for the purpose of the upkeep of the temple, the lands would partake the character of religious endowments as defined u/s 6 (17) of the HR & CE Act, necessarily the prior permission u/s 34 of the HR & CE Act from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department has to be obtained to alienate the property and in the absence of the such permission, such alienation is wholly impermissible.

¶126

45.Logic is the pivot around which the law has to be applied in the proper manner so that the fulcrum moves in a smooth manner without any friction. Law sans logic would be nothing but disaster. The interpretation given above is the only way in which the law can be applied logically to the entire scenario so that there is no friction in any quarters. Any other construction for the purpose of fitting the law in the fashion as deemed by the parties would be grossly against the logic, which was not envisioned while such a grant was given to Adinarayanaswamy Temple or to the original pattadars.

¶127

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

¶128

46.Though it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the condition does not bar alienation as there is no condition for alienation and, therefore, the alienation done by the legal heirs of the original pattadars cannot be said to be bad, but in view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer coupled with the provisions of the HR & CE Act and also the Minor Inams Act categorically bars alienation of the subject property and if at all any alienation is to take place, the same can only be in the interest of the Adinarayanaswamy Temple and not in the interest of the pattadars. However, as pointed out above, the whole transaction has taken place for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the pattadars and not an iota of interest of the Temple was kept in mind while such an act was performed.

¶129

47.Therefore, it is clear that the alienation done by the legal heirs of the original pattadars by selling the subject lands to the petitioners is against the intent and purport of the patta granted by the Settlement Officer and the condition imposed by the Settlement Officer has been grossly violated and bent to the benefit of the legal heirs of the original pattadars and definitely the said alienation of the subject lands warrant interference at the hands of this Court. All the above aspects have been taken into consideration in proper perspective by the 2^nd respondent, while passing the impugned order.

¶130

Though a contention is raised that the principles of natural justice have been violated as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, it is to be pointed out that insofar as the 2^nd respondent is concerned, the petitioners do not have any legal legs to stand for grant of an opportunity as the violation of the conditions has been done by the legal heirs of the original pattadars who are alone within the eyes of the 2^nd respondent and if at all opportunity of hearing is to be given, it is only to the said legal heirs of the original pattadars, before reversing the patta back in the name of Adinarayanaswamy Temple and the petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, claim any right to be heard, merely because they are subsequent purchasers of the property, as the legal heirs of the original pattadars have not been granted any right to sell the lands and alienation of the lands by the legal heirs of the original pattadars is an infraction of the conditions of grant of patta, which necessitated cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the original pattadars. Therefore, the violation of principles of natural justice claimed by the petitioners does not merit consideration.

¶131

Insofar as the contention that the 2^nd respondent is not the competent authority to cancel the patta granted to the

¶132

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

¶133

original pattadars and it is only the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is competent to cancel the patta, it is to be pointed out that once the alienation itself is held to be bad, in such a scenario the petitioners, being subsequent purchasers of the property from the successors of the original pattadars, who did not have any title to the subject lands, their contention that order has been passed by an authority, who is not competent to do so does not merit acceptance as they do not have any locus to question the said order.

¶134

Further, it is the submission of the respondents that not only the lands have been alienated, but the performance of puja service, which was the basis on which patta was granted to Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer, has not been rendered by the legal heirs and that HR & CE Department has taken over the temple and that puja is being performed at the instance of HR & CE Department. Though it is countered by the petitioners saying that puja service is still being performed by the legal heirs of the original pattadars, who had alienated the property, however, there is no material available on record to substantiate the said contention but for a mere oral recital on affidavit that puja service is still being rendered by the legal heirs of the original pattadars. This clearly shows that not only there is gross violation of condition of grant of patta resulting in alienation of the property, but also total deprivation of the puja service to the Presiding Deity at Adinarayanaswamy Temple, which was the basis on which patta has been granted to the original pattadars. The said infraction resulted in the cancellation of patta granted in favour of the original pattadars, by the 2^nd respondent, which cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.

¶135

However, it should not be lost sight of that the petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers, are bona fide purchasers, having purchased the property from the legal heirs of the original pattadars for valuable consideration. The petitioners may not have been in the thick of things to know the legal nuances in the grant of the said patta to the original pattadars and would have been carried away by the literal meaning of personal grant mentioned in the order of the Settlement Officer. However, the ignorance of the petitioners would not in any way grant them any favourable benefit towards the said purchase and the purchase of the subject lands cannot be held to be legal. However, this Court should also balance the interest of either party to the lis, and the petitioners should not be divested of their hard labour that they would have put in the lands all these years and the said labour definitely requires to be taken into consideration and given its due weight.

¶136

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

¶137

In such a backdrop, this Court feels that the petitioners may be granted liberty to submit requisite representation to the 6^th respondent requesting for lease of the lands, under their custody, which, as aforesaid, belong to Adinarayanaswamy Temple, and on such representation being filed, the 6^th respondent is directed to take into consideration all the aforesaid aspects, more especially, the analysis in paragraph No.46 of this order, while dealing with the representation of the petitioners for grant of lease in their favour upon terms, as would be beneficial to Adinarayanaswamy Temple and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶138

For the reasons aforesaid, these writ petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶139

//True Copy//

¶140

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶141

GLN

¶142

¶143

The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 705.

¶144

The District Revenue Officer Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 705.

¶145

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri Division Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 701.

¶146

The Tahsildar Palacode Taluk Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 808.

¶147

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

¶148

5. The Village Administrative Officer Jakkasamudram Village Palacode Taluk Dharmapuri Dt. 636 808.
6. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Uthamar Gandhi Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034.
7. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Kottai Mariamman Temple Salem 636 001.
8. The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dharmapuri 636 701.
9. The Executive Officer Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Palacode Dharmapuri District 636 808.
10. The District Registrar Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri 636 701.
+10cc to M/s.C.Umashankar, Advocate, S.R.No.32645, 32646, 32647, 32648, 32649, 32650, 32651, 32652, 32653, 32654
W.P.NOS.6440 OF 2022, etc. Batch
RP(CO)
RGA(29/06/2022)(30/06/2022)

¶149

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

Mr. Sudheshwaran v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sudheshwaran v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Esakkimuthu Vs The Inspector of Police

Prabhu Vs The Inspector of Police

Nagarani Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Vijayakumar, Vs the Special Commissioner and

M/s.Super Goods Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner

E.Suganthi Vs the Union of India