AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramanujam, J.—The petitioner herein is an institution called Vaiyapuri Paradesi Annadana Chatram and Dharmasthananam situate in
Nellikuppam, South Arcot Dt. On the ground that the said institution is only of a charitable nature and not of a public religious character, its ceiling
area has been fixed at five standard acres under S.5(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act 58 of 1961. The petitioner-institution has an
extent of 55.61 acres equivalent to 27.35 standard acres. Having regard to the fact that the ceiling area for a public charitable nature five standard
acres, an extent of 22.35 standard acres had been treated as surplus, and the institution has been asked to surrender the said extent as surplus
lands.
The claim put forward by the institution was two fold. Firstly, it contended that it is a public trust of a religious nature and therefore, it is entitled
to be exempted from the provisions of S.2 of Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961. Secondly, even assuming that the trust, as originally created by the
founder, was only a charitable trust, as a result of the Government notifying the same under S.3 of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, it should be taken
to be a religious institution. These contentions having been rejected and the petitioner having been held to be entitled to hold only five standard
acres as a public charitable institution, he filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal questioning the decision of the Authorised Officer. The Tribunal
also agreed with the view of the Authorised Officer and held that the institution is only of a charitable nature and not a public trust of a religious
nature so as to get the benefit of exemption from the provisions of the Act.
Before me Mr. P. S. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that though the documents under which the petitioner-trust has
been created proceeds on the basis that it is purely of a charitable nature, still, having regard to the fact that the charity to be performed under the
document is more or less in the precincts of the temple, it should be taken to be a religious trust. I have perused the document, dated 8th April
1897, Ex. A-1, under which the trust has been created. The document says that certain properties have been purchased from public subscription
and they have been endowed for the purpose of performing annadana dharmam, that is, feeding of the poor, in a place which is situate just
opposite to Sri Prasanna Venkatachalapathi temple. The document also provides for the method of selection of trustees and for the due
administration of the said trust. But, the document does not say that the poor feeding, which is the sole object of the trust, should be conducted in
connection with any festival in the temple or that it is confined only to the worshippers in the temple? The poor feeding contemplated under the
document does not have any connection with the temple or the festivals conducted therein. Therefore, the charity referred to in the document is
unconnected with the temple and its affairs. Therefore, it is clear that the trust as created under the original document, Ex. A-1, dated 8th April,
1897, is purely of a charitable nature. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the poor feeding is
done is a place just in front of the temple it will make a purely charitable trust into a religious and charitable trust. To make a charitable trust a
religious trust as well, it must be shown that the object of the trust had some nexus or connection with the temple or its affairs or the worship or the
conduct of the festivals therein. As already stated, the document of trust does not restrict the poor feeding either to the worshippers or to the
persons who resort to the temple for worship. Nor is it restricted to any festival or religious function offered in the temple. The authorities below
have, therefore, come to the right conclusion that the trust in this case, as originally created, was only of a charitable nature and not a religious trust
of public nature.
This leads to the next contention of the learned counsel which is based on a notification issued by the State Government under S.3 of the Tamil
Nadu Act 19 of 1961. By a notification issued under the said section, the provisions of the said Act had been made applicable to the institution.
Subsequent to the notification, the Area Committee appointed certain trustees for the said institution, exercising its powers under S.12(2) of the
Act. The said order appointing the trustees of the Area Committee was challenged before this court in S. Krishna Reddiar v. Venkatakrishna
Reddiar W.P. No. 977 of 1956 and Rajagopalan, J. while quashing the said order appointing the trustees, observed that on the notification of the
Government, under S.3 the institution has become a religious institution, and that the Area Committee had no jurisdiction to appoint trustees to
such religious institution and, therefore, the order appointing trustees by the Area Committee cannot be sustained in law. The said observation has
been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his stand that though the trust as originally created was only of a charitable
nature, it became a religious institution as a result of the notification issued by the Government under S.3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1961. The
question is, how far this contention of the learned counsel could be accepted.
The effect of the notification issued under S.3 of the said Act is not to change or alter the character of the trust, but to treat it as a specific
endowment for the purpose of the application of the provisions of the Act. This is clear from sub-S.(3) of S.3, which says that on a notification
issued by the Government under that sub-section extending all or any of the provisions of the Act to the charitable endowments, the provisions so
extended shall apply to such charitable endowments as if it were a specific endowment. The expression ""as if it were"" is of considerable
significance. The use of this expression indicates that a charitable endowment is not treated as a specific endowment for all purposes but it has to
be treated as a specific endowment only for the purpose of the application of the provisions of the Act under which the notification has been
issued. Therefore, it is not possible to say that as a result of the notification the petitioner-institution, which was only a charitable endowment, had
automatically become a specific endowment or religious institution. If it were a specific endowment it will, of course, come under the definition of
religious institution as defied in the said Act, But, having regard to the fact that a charitable endowment has to be treated as a specific endowment
only for the purpose of the application of that Act but not for all purposes, I am of the view that the character of the institution cannot be said to
have been changed by the issue of the notification under S.3. No doubt, the observation of Rajagopalan, J. in the case referred to above is to the
effect that on a notification the institution will come under the definition of a specific endowment and as such, under the definition of a religious
institution. But, the learned Judge was considering the applicability of the provisions of the Act to the institution with reference to the powers of the
Area Committee to appoint trustees for the institution. There cannot be any dispute that for the purposes of the application of the provisions of the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, the institution should be deemed to be a specific endowment. It is for that reason the learned
Judge has proceeded to treat the petitioner-institution as a religious institution. Here we are not considering the applicability of the provisions of the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act to the institution. We are concerned with the applicability of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act
58 of 1961 to the petitioner-institution, and the mere fact that the institution has been treated as a religious institution for the purpose of another
Act, on the basis of a notification issued under that Act, it cannot be said that the institution has become a religious institution as contended for by
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that while a private trust, as a person, is entitled to hold 15 standard acres, a charitable
institution which is a public trust, has been deprived of such a benefit by restricting the ceiling area to 5 standard acres and that this virtually works
considerable hardship on institutions like the petitioner-institution which have been founded purely for charitable purposes. According to the
learned counsel, there is no basis for showing this hostile treatment as against public charitable trust while the Legislature has chosen to give 15
standard acres for private trusts, not coming within the scope of S.5 (3-A). There is considerable force in the said submission of the learned
counsel. In fact, there appears to be no basis for making the distinction between the ceiling extents which are to be held by a private trust and a
public trust and to deprive the public trust of the properties which have been endowed for charities by fixing a lower ceiling area. However, this is
not a matter for the court. It being a legislative policy, it is for the Legislature to consider that question. In this view, the civil revision petition fails
and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.