K. Nallathambi vs The State of Tamilnadu

K. Chandru

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge an order passed by the Sub Registrar, Namgiripettai, wherein the petitioner

was informed that since the matters are pending before the Court in W.P. No. 17500 of 2010, no action can be taken on the document. The

contention of the petitioner was that the respondents have no right to refuse to register the document on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Board had stayed the registration of the sale deed and the Writ Petition was pending before this Court.

On notice from this Court, on behalf of the 4th respondent, Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, a counter affidavit dated

25.4.2012 has been filed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that W.P. No. 17500 of 2010 filed by one Vijayakumar was allowed by this

court on 5.1.2012 on the ground that G.O.Ms. No. 150, Commercial Tax Department dated 22.9.2000 was withdrawn by the Government as it

cannot be traceable to the power conferred u/s 22-A of the Registration Act. However, the State Government subsequent to the judgment of the

Division Bench in Captain Dr. R. Bellie and Dr. Smt. Seetha Bellie Vs. The Sub Registrar, has also made an amendment to the Registration Act by

Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 2009 and empowered to refuse to register in respect of lands relating to Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowment Board.

In any event, this Court by judgment in S. Rangarajan Vs. The District Registrar, The Sub-Registrar, Srirangam Sun Registrar''s Officer and The

Idol of Arulmighu Sri Ranganathar, held that if the owner has objection to the registration, then the refusal can be made by the Registrar. In similar

case in M.Muthaiya vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, this Court held that since the idol of Ranganathaswamy is the true owner, the Executive Officer

had to protect the property and therefore he was right in requesting the Sub Registrar not to register any document. The matter was also taken on

appeal in W.A.(MD) No. 295 of 2009. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on 20.7.2009.

In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is claimed that the land which is sought to be registered belong to Arulmigu

Seventheeswarar Temple, Seerapalli Village, Rasipuram Taluk and the land which the petitioner seeks to register is item No. 18 in the Tabular

Column shown in the counter affidavit and it relates to Survey No. 230/5. Originally the land was classified as ""Panjangam Maniam"" as per the

revenue records. But the Settlement Officer has erroneously allowed the same to be converted into ryotwari patta in favur of one Krishnasamy

Iyer. It is claimed that the temple is entitled to retrieve the property as the property originally belonged to the temple and subsequently changed to

individual names by fraudulent transactions.

Since the land is classified as ""Panjangam Maniam"", it cannot be converted into any other forum and without the knowledge of the temple

administration. As to whether such a land can be treated as Inam and subsequently converted into ryotwari patta by the person, in whose favour it

was granted as Inam to the poojari of the temple came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Joint Commnissioner, Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments, Administration Department Vs. Jayaraman and Others, and in paragraph No. 8, it was observed as follows:

The grant was of government land. The grant was, even going by the case of the claimants, in favour of persons who were acting as poojaris of

the temple, for the purpose of utilising its income for poojas and maintenance of the temple. Even in the extract of the fasli register, it is shown that

the registered name of the inamdar is poojaris of Mariamman and Bhagavathiamman Temples and the enjoyers as Veerana Pandaram and

Arunachalam Chetty. The relation between the inamdar and the enjoyer is shown as ''devadayam'' and in the column regarding details of inam, it is

shown as for poojas to God (Sasvatham) and in the column relating to details of endowment, it is shown that the income of the land is used by the

poojaris for pooja and maintenance of the temples. Prima facie, government land had been dedicated to the temples by way of grants by the

Government. Even if the income therefrom had alone been dedicated to the temples, it would still be a religious trust or endowment and certainly

not a private trust to which the Trusts Act, 1882 would apply. Section 1 of the Trusts Act, 1882 itself provides that nothing contained therein

applies to public or private religious or charitable endowments. The endowment here was certainly not a private endowment since there is no case

that the temples are private. The endowment was for a religious purpose, the conducting of poojas in the temples and the maintenance of the

temples. Therefore, endowment was of public property for the benefit of public temples and the poojaris constituted the trustees. They were

trustees imposed with the obligation of spending the income from the properties, for the poojas and maintenance of the temple. It was clearly a

case of a public religious endowment and by virtue of Section 1 of the Act, the Trusts Act, 1882 would have no application. Learned counsel for

the respondents tried to argue that the application u/s 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882 was maintainable but could not argue that these were private

trusts by reference to any relevant material. The lands were government lands and the Government had dedicated the properties or the income

therefrom for the upkeep of public temples. By no stretch of imagination, can it be held that it was a private trust coming within the purview of the

Trusts Act, 1882. The District Judge has, therefore, clearly acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the application u/s 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882.

On this short ground, it has to be held that the order passed by the District Judge in the application filed u/s 34 of the Act granting permission to the

claimants to sell the properties is one without jurisdiction. The High Court was completely in error in brushing aside this vital aspect while

considering whether the District Judge had acted within jurisdiction in entertaining the application u/s 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882.

In any event, this question will have to be gone into a regular Civil Suit and for the purpose of this case, prima facie the authorities can stop the land

being registered as the land belonged to the temple and it was utilised only as a Panjangam Maniam. Hence, there is no case made out to interfere

with the impugned order. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.