AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Raju, J.—This writ appeal has been field against the order of the Learned single Judge dated 10.8.1994 in WP. No. 13634 of 1994
wherein the learned Judge has chosen to reject the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the
records of the second respondent dated : 25.4.1994 whereunder the second respondent has set aside the order of the Tahsildar, Perundurai Taluk
dated: 21.1.1994 transferring the patta relating to the lands in question in favour of the appellants. The appellants are admittedly poojaris of
Arulmighu Vijayapuriamman at Kovilpalyam of Erode Taluk. Even in the affidavit, it is admitted that the lands in question were granted for the
pagoda of Sri Vijayapuriamman Devasthanam at Kovilpalayam, Erode Taluk and the said grant was confirmed by the British Government
permanently to the pagoda so long as it was well kept up. It is also claimed that the lands were in possession of one Swami Pandaram who was
doing service to the temple.
The lands were considered to be minor inam lands notified under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) and that the lands were taken over on and from the appointed date, viz., 15.2.1965. The settlement Tahsildar-
IV, Erode has considered the question of issue of ryotwari patta under the provisions of the above Act after following the due procedure and
issuing notices as contemplated under the statute. The first appellant and Palani Pandaram, sons of Kanti Pandaram, appear to have been
examined as witnesses on behalf of the claimants and after careful consideration of the materials placed before him, the Settlement Tahsildar, in
exercise of his powers u/s 8(2)(ii) of the Act r/w. Rule 42 of the Rules issued a ryotwari patta in the name of the deity represented by the service
holders in his proceedings in S.R. No. 718 of 1989. Act 30 of 1963, Erode Taluk dated: 30.11.1969. This order, passed by the competent
statutory authority docs not appear to have been challenged in the manner known to and is as permissible under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Act 30 of 1963. Instead, the appellants appear to have moved Tahsildar, Perundurai to transfer the patta in their names accepting a lump sum
payment in lieu of the liability to render services and grant ryotwari patta in favour of the appellants. The Tahsildar by his proceedings dated:
21.1.1994 appears to have determined a sum of Rs. 53,680 as the sum payable thereupon passed an order for the transfer of patta subject to the
payment of the said amount and patta was also transferred. It is at this stage, a community of people, said to be the worshippers, and even claiming
to be entitled to the temple, have objected before the District Revenue Officer against the order of the Tahsildar. The District Revenue Officer, by
the order impugned in the writ petition, has set aside the order of the Tahsildar on the ground that the transfer of patta ordered is contrary to the
provisions of law. It was also noticed by the second respondent that the feet that the whole of the land belongs to the temple is also an accepted
feet having been declared so by the judgment of the Sub- Court, Erode in O.S. No. 212 of 1948 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore and
that therefore, the move of the appellants, to claim before the Tahsildar to treat the land as temple poramboke and get patta transferred in their
name, cannot be countenanced. Aggrieved appellants have filed the above writ appeal.
The learned Single Judge also had gone into the matter elaborately and in the context of the copy of the order granting patta produced before
him, which showed that the land was with the temple and the ryotwari patta was also granted under the statute in the name of the deity represented
by the service holder and therefore, the appellants could not get the patta transferred in their names even on payment of the amounts, dismissed the
writ petition. The learned Judge was also pleased to direct the Tahsildar to refund the money, if any, paid pursuant to his orders to the appellants.
Not satisfied, the appellants have come before this court.
Heard the learned counsel on either side. The older of the learned single Judge is 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 notices above, the order 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 arc 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 relying upon a provision which in our
view, is totally irrelevant. Section 21 of the Act has relevance only to service inams and me grant of the nature in favour of the deity and for the
support of the Pagoda cannot be said to be 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 to 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 mat 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 the manner
and to the extent provided therein. The District Revenue Officer has only set right to grave irregularity and the illegality committed by the appellants
in connivance, as we are constrained to observe, with the Tahsildar, Perundurai relying upon some 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.
Consequently, we see no merit whatsoever, in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal as noticed supra. As long as the Settlement
Tahsilldar''s order of patta granted in favour of the deity and the temple stands, the appellants cannot have any rights in derogation of the rights of
the deity or the temple and therefore, there is no legal right for the appellants to be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-
The observations made by us in this judgment should not be construed as providing any fresh cause of action to the appellants if under the
statutes they have already lost their right to challenge the proceedings granting patta in favour of the temple in the year 1969.