AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raju, J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.8.1994 in W.P. 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 Arulmigu
Vijayapuriamman at Kovilpalayam 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 or 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 Palani Pandaram, son 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 read with Rule 42 of the Rules issued a ryotwari patta in the name of the deity represented by the service holders in
his proceedings in No. S.R. 718 of 1989. Act 30 of 1963 Erode Taluk dated 30.11.1969. This order, passed by the competent statutory
authority does 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 in lieu of the services to be rendered and 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 fact that the whole of the land belongs to
the temple is also an accepted fact 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 petition.
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 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 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 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
Tahsildar''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.