Madras High Court
V.Perumal vs The District Collector on 4 November, 2019
W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 09.07.2024
DELIVERED ON : 30.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1978 and 1980 of 2021
V.Perumal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Lalgudi,
Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Lalgudi,
Trichy District.
4.Selvi
5.Vennila ... Respondents
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
record pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent
in his proceedings in O.Mu.Aa2/6109/2019, dated 04.11.2019 and quash
the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the second third
respondents herein to restore and issue the patta in the name of the
temple namely Arulmigu Elliamman Kovil situated at Survey No.488/12
to an extent of 912 sq.mt., situated at Varaguppaai Village, Lalgudi
Taluk, Trichy District based on the petitioner's representation, dated
21.11.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
For Respondents : Mr.V.OM Prakash
Government Advocate
for R.1 to R.3
: Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
for R.4 and R.5
ORDER
The Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the second respondent and for direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to restore and issue patta in the name of Arulmigu Elliamman Kovil situated at S.No.488/12 to an extent of 912 sqmt of Varaguppai 2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2019.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's Village Reddaiyampatti, Mohanoor Taluk, Namakkal District has more than 150 families and their ancestors constructed a temple namely Arulmigu Sree Ellaiamman Kovil in Varaguppai Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District 100 years ago and they were worshipping in the said temple without any dispute, that subsequently the petitioner and his village people are worshipping in the said temple and they are conducting temple festival every year and also at Sivarathiri days and other auspicious days, that the petitioner and his village people have created a trust in the name of Arulmigu Sree Ellaiamman Kovil Worship Trust, dated 30.08.2018 and got it registered and that the petitioner is the President of the said Trust.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that Survey No.488/12 wherein the temple is situated, originally classified as Village Natham and the same was confirmed by the revenue officials, that the third respondent, without giving any notice to the petitioner and the other 3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 temple related people, changed the temple survey number and reduced the extent of temple property as 366 sqmt, that the petitioner, after coming to know about the same, made a representation before the respondents 2 and 3 for getting patta in the name of the temple, that the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 04.11.2019 holding that the land in S.No.488/12 was classified as Government Poramboke and as such, patta cannot granted in the name of the temple, rejected the petitioner's representation, that in the meanwhile, the fifth respondent who has no connection whatever with the temple property, has been taking steps to construct a building in the said land in S.No.488/12, that though the petitioner informed that the property is the temple property, they have stated that the property was purchased by them from one Raju, who is the vendor of the respondents 4 and 5, that the petitioner came to know that the private respondents have purchased the property entirely different from the temple property and there was no connection whatever with the temple land, that the private respondents by alleging that the patta has not been granted in favour of the temple, rejected the representation of the petitioner and attempted to make construction and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the 4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 present writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondents 4 and 5 purchased a property to an extent of 657 sqft, 611 sqft and 1948 sqft comprised in Survey No.489/2 of Veerakuppai Village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District, vide sale deed dated 12.07.2017, bearing Document No.1164 of 2017 from one S.Raju and Kanimozhi and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property, that they have decided to construct a house and accordingly started a construction and the same is under progress, that in the meanwhile, the respondents 2 and 3 made an inspection in that locality and found that a temple called Arulmighu Sri Ellaiamman temple was constructed by encroaching upon poromboke land, that the respondents 2 and 3 warned the petitioners and others as they are encroachers upon the Government Porombomke land, that the petitioner with an intention to escape from the clutches of law, created a trust as Varaguppai Arulmighu Sri Ellaiamman Temple Worship Trust and on the strength of the said Trust, submitted an application before the third respondent that the temple is situated in S.No.48/12 and to give a patta in the name of Arulmighu Sri 5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 Ellaiamman Temple Worship Trust, that the second respondent after scrutinizing the revenue records, has passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim, that the petitioner after exhausting the appeal remedy and when the same was pending before the second respondent, has filed the present writ petition, that the petitioner has been trying to create a record as if the land belongs to the Trust, that the property purchased by the respondents 4 and 5 is no way connected to the said temple, that the respondents 4 and 5 have never tried to encroach upon the temple property and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that after filing of the writ petition, the Taluk Deputy Surveyor, Lalgudi had conducted a survey and enquiry on 25.03.2024 and submitted a report, that the Taluk Deputy Surveyor has found that the Natham land having S.No.488/14 to an extent of 366 sqm stands in the name of the temple Arulmigu Ellaiamman Temple as per the village records, that the land in S.No.488/14 shown in the FMB sketch is identical to the current land area of the temple, that FMB sketch of S.No.488 has 22 subdivisions in 6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 total from 488/1 to 488/22, that the Natham Adangal Register of S.No. 488 has a total of 22 subdivisions which are 488/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, that S.Nos.488/6, 12, 13 were left out in the Natham Adangal Register and the same were substituted by S.Nos.488/23, 24 and 25, that the details found S.No. 488/12 of FMB sketch is similar to the details of S.No.488/24 in Natham Adangal Register, wherein the name of the land owner is Muthusamy and the extent is shown as 233 sq.mt, that the Taluk Surveyor, in his report has specifically stated that no change was effected to S.No.488/12 as S.No.488/14 and no patta has been issued for the land in enjoyment of Arulmigu Ellaiamman Temple, that no encroachments were made in the temple land, that the land in dispute is categorised as Government Natham Poramboke both in resettlement register before UDR and after UDR, that no patta was given in the name of the said temple and that the land in dispute is only Government Poramboke, that the petitioner can neither claim any patta for the said land and no patta can be granted either in the name of the temple or in the name of the petitioner's trust and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021
6. It is not in dispute that S.No.488 of Varaguppai Village, Lalgudi Taluk admeasures 0.45.50 hectares as per FMB sketch and the same is equal to the total extent of the land in S.No.488 in Natham Adangal Register. It is also not in dispute that S.No.48 came to be subdivided into 22 subdivisions. But according to the official respondents, FMB sketch of S.No.488 has 22 subdivisions from S.Nos.488/1 to 488/22, whereas Natham Adangal Register has totally 22 subdivisions from S.Nos.488/1 to 5, 7 to 11, 14 to 25 leaving out S.Nos.488/6, 12, and 13 and that the same were substituted with S.Nos.488/23, 24 and 25.
7. At the time of hearing, when a specific query was raised as to why 3 sub division Nos.488/6, 12 and 13 were left out, the reply was very casual and mechanical, that it is by mistake. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if one number was left out, it can be considered as by mistake, but when 3 numbers are left out, this Court is at loss to understand as to how the same can be considered as mistake or by oversight. The official respondents have not offered any acceptable reason or explanation for the above lapses, but the explanation was made that they would rectify the mistakes. As rightly 8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, because of the above lapses, the petitioner was forced to implead the private respondents and the private respondents were forced to face the above writ petition.
8. The main contention of the petitioner is that the land in S.No. 488/2 was classified as Village Natham and their ancestors had constructed a temple therein 100 years ago and that ancestors and subsequently their decendants, now the petitioner and the village people have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and are worshipping the said temple. The defence of the official respondents is that S.No.488/12 is owned by Muthusamy, S/o Govindha Moopanar, Maruthamuthu S/o Duraisamy Moopanar and Rasu S/o Muthusamy, that the temple in dispute is situated in S.No.488/4 to an extent of 366 sqmt and that since the said land in S.No.488/4 is classified as Natham Government Poramboke land, patta cannot be granted in the name of the temple.
9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021
9. The official respondents have produced the copies of FMB sketch, report sent by the Taluk Deputy Surveyor, Lalgudi, Natham Land Tax Scheme Pure Adangal Register and the copies of the report submitted by the third respondent through the Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents.
10. Considering the records produced by the official respondents and their counter affidavit, it is clearly evident that the petitioner's temple Arulmigu Ellaiamman Temple is situated in S.No.488/14 of Varaguppai Village, Lalgudi Taluk and the extent is shown as 366 sqmt. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any official or authenticated document to show that the temple in dispute is situated in a land which admeasures 912 sqmt. The points to be considered are as to whether the land in dispute is a Natham land as claimed by the petitioner or Natham Government poramboke land as claimed by the official respondents and whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim on the ground that the patta cannot be granted in favour of the temple in respect of Natham poromboke land can be sustained.
10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021
11. Now let us consider the case of the parties with regard to the nature of the land. It is admitted by the official respondents that as per “A” register prior to UDR scheme, the land in dispute, the adjoining lands and other lands were shown to be in old S.No.187, for which the present Survey Number is 488.
12. Grama Natham lands are bare lands that are unutilized in the outskirts of Cities. These lands are used for residential purposes only and not for commercial purposes. In Valai Tamil. Com, the meaning of the Grama Natham is given as “nUs;, nut[, Mf;fk;, Ch;, Chpd; FoapUg;gplk;, kidepyk;, nlk;, ej;ij, rA;F”. The important characteristic of Grama Natham land is that the same did not vest with the State. It is pertinent to note that not only the general public, but also the revenue authorities sometimes have been using the words “Grama Natham”, “Natham Porombke” and the “Government Natham Poromboke” as if all the above words conveyed the same meaning, but it does not. Regarding the Grama Natham or Natham lands, the person who occupied the said lands as the first occupier is entitled to retain the same and the Government authorities cannot claim the said lands as 11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 Government lands. Sometimes, the Government poromboke lands are compared with Grama Natham. Regarding poromboke, “g[wk;” means outside and “ Bghf;F” means revenue records and as such, poromboke can be defined as a land which lies outside revenue records. In case, if the Natham or Gramanatham lands are not occupied by anyone, then the Government as custodian of unclaimed property can very well classify the said land as Government poromboke land and can use the same for giving to the homeless for constructing houses therein.
13. In the case on hand, as per Resettlement Register of Village of Varaguppai No.110, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District, Old S.No.187 has been shown to be classified as Natham. As already pointed out, the official respondents in their counter statement, has specifically stated as per the Village records, S.No.488/4 has been shown as Natham lands standing in the name of the temple ie., Arulmigu Ellaiamman Kovil. But in the subsequent paragraphs, they have taken a stand that the land in dispute has been categorised as Government Natham Poromboke both in Resettlement register before UDR and after UDR and that since the land in dispute remains as Natham Government poromboke, the petitioner 12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 cannot claim any patta. But the official respondents have not shown any resettlement register before UDR that the land in dispute has been classified as Government poromboke or Natham Government Poromboke. But as already pointed out in the resettlement register, it has been specifically shown as Natham.
14. As already pointed out, in case of non-occupation by anyone in Natham lands, the Government can convert the same as Government poromboke lands and utilise the same. But in our case, it is not the case of the official respondents that they have converted the Natham lands available in Old S.No.187 as Government Poromboke lands, as there were no occupiers of the said lands. They have neither pleaded in the affidavit nor produced any records to show as to when and why the Natham lands came to be converted as Government poromboke.
15. The main contention of the petitioner that the temple in the land in dispute came to be constructed 100 years back and they have been worshipping the said temple continuously, are not specifically disputed by the official respondents. Even according to the official 13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 respondents, the name of Elliamman Temple was shown to be recorded in respect of the land in S.No.488/14 in Grama Natham Adangal. It is not the case of the official respondents that the temple in S.No.488/14 came to be constructed recently. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the temple was available in the land in dispute ie., in S.No.488/14, which was classified as Natham, the question of converting or treating the land in dispute as Government Poramboke land or Natham Government Poromboke land does not arise at all. Considering the above and taking note of the records available on record, it is very much clear that the Arulmighu Ellaiamman Temple is situated in S.No.488/14 which remains to be Natham land.
16. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the land in dispute whether it can be taken as Natham land or Natham Government Poromboke land, whatever would be the nomenculture, patta cannot be issued in favour of the temple as patta came to be issued in respect of the Natham lands for residential purposes. 14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021
17. An idol in a Hindu temple is a representation or symbol of an object of worship and idols hold a place of religious, social and cultural significance. In Hindu Law, an idol is considered a “juristic entity” and a legal person with the ability to sue and be sued. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, has reiterated the legal position that an idol in a Hindu temple can hold property and that the property of a Hindu temple or idol belongs to the deity with the shebait only having the right to manage and possess the estate. Under the Income Tax Act, idol's property can be taxed as the deity falls within the definition of “individual”. The idols that the people worship everyday possess rights and certain obligations and as such, they are considered to be juristic persons, which are non-human legal entities who possess rights and duties and are recognized by the law.
18. In the case of Promatha Nath Mullick Vs. Pradyumma Kumar Mullick reported in AIR 1925 PC 139, it has been stated that a Hindu idol is a juristic entity and possesses juridical status, which means that the idol can sue and be sued and further stated that the idol also possesses “will” which can be interpreted by the person, who occupies 15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 the position of shebait either by inheritance or by appointment and if a conflict arises, the Court would appoint a disinterested person to decide what the idol shall deem to want given the other interests involved.
19. In the case of Ram Jankijee Deities and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 1999 SC 2131, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“ Before proceeding with the matter any further apropos the judgment under appeal, it would be convenient to note however that Hindu law recognizes Hindu idol as a juridical subject being capable in law of holding property by reason of the Hindu Shastras following the status of a legal person in the same way as that of a natural person. The Privy Council in the case of Pramatha Nath Mullick vs. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick & Anr LR 52 IA 245 observed:
"One of the questions emerging at this point, is as to nature of such an idol, and the services due thereto. A Hindu idol is, according to long established authority, founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus, and the recognition thereof by Courts of law, a "juristic entity."
It has a juridical status with the power of suing and being sued. Its interests are attended to by the person who has the 16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 deity in his charge and who is in law its manager with all the powers which would, in such circumstances, on analogy, be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir. It is unnecessary to quote the authorities; for this doctrine, thus simply stated, is firmly established.
A useful narrative of the concrete realities of the position is to be found in the judgment of Mukerji J. in Rambrahma Chatterjee vs. Kedar Nath Banerjee [1922 (36) CLJ 478/483] "We need not describe here in detail the normal type of continued worship of a consecrated image - the sweeping of the temple, the process of smearing, the removal of the previous day's offerings of flowers, the presentation of fresh flowers, the respectful oblation of rice with flowers and water, and other like practices. It is sufficient to state that the deity is, in short, conceived as a living being and is treated in the same way as the master of the house would be treated by his humble servant. The daily routine of life is gone through with minute accuracy; the vivified image is regaled with the necessaries and luxuries of life in due succession, even to the changing of clothes, the offering of cooked and uncooked food, and the retirement to rest."
20. Recently, when a closure of temple was questioned, my 17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 Esteemed Brother Justice G.R.Swaminathan in W.P.(MD)No.17824 of 2024, vide order dated 30.07.2024,has observed that an idol is to be considered as a juristic personality in law and this Court has exercised parens patriae jurisdiction to protect the rights of the idol performing the daily dharmic rituals continue and that the closure of the temple without customary pooja would amount to imprisonment, ordered for opening of the temple.
21. Considering the above, the legal position referred is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Generally in the Hindu temples, the idols or deities are being cleaned everyday and Neivedhya (ieBtj;jpak;) are being offered every day. Hence, the idol or the deity in the temple is to be considered as they are residing in the temple. Since Hindu idols or deities are being treated like that of human beings and taking note of the legal position that they are the juristic persons and in the absence of any specific bar or prohibition for granting patta in favour of the temple, the contention of the official respondents that no patta can be granted in favour of the temple in respect of Natham lands cannot be sustained. When the temple was there for several years in S.No.488/14, the 18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 contention that patta can only be issued for residential purposes and not for temple is bereft of any logic and reasoning. There is absolutely no legal bar / prohibition for treating the idol as a person who seeks patta recognising his long occupation of the land in dispute.
22. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the official respondents are not at all clear, as to whether the land in dispute is Natham land or poromboke land, as it is evident from the counter affidavit as well as the reports filed by the third respondent.
23. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the official respondents are to be directed to issue patta to Arulmighu Sree Ellaiamman Temple for occupying the land in S.No.488/14 to an extent of 366 sqmt. It is pertinent to note that the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that they are not seeking patta in favour of the Trust created recently, but are seeking patta only in favour of the temple. The said submission is recorded. 19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021
24. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.Aa2/6109/2019, dated 04.11.2019, is quashed. The official respondents are directed to issue patta to Arulmighu Sree Ellaiamman Temple for occupying the land in S.No.488/14 to an extent of 366 sqmt. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
30.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No SSL To
1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi, Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar, Lalgudi, Trichy District.
20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
SSL PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.2376 of 2021 30.08.2024 21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis