Madras High Court
Chandira And Anr. vs Arulmigu Poigaikarai Mariamman Temple ... on 14 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)1MLJ528
ORDER S. Jagadeesan, J.
1. The question arises for consideration is identical in both the writ petitions. Both the petitioners are claiming that they are the hereditary poojaris of Arulmigu Mariamman temple situate at Avoor Village, Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur District. The petitioners by virtue of the office of hereditary poojaris are looking after the lands belonging to the first respondent temple. They applied for the assignment of an extent of 0.02.0 Hectares of land on the ground that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu Act (Act 40 of 1971) they are entitled for such assignment in respect of their residence. The Special Tahsildar (Revenue Court), Tanjore, the third respondent herein granted the assignment. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent temple preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvarur, the second respondent herein. The second respondent allowed the appeal and set aside the order of assignment passed by the third respondent on the ground that the petitioners were not permitted to be in occupation of the land and they trespassed over the same which was earmarked for the use of the public during festival occasions. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the second respondent the petitioners have filed the writ petitions.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are in actual possession and enjoyment of the disputed land by cultivating the same. The petitioners engaged themselves in cultivation of the land. Apart from doing poojari work, the petitioners carry on the cultivation of the land and hence they are entitled for the Kudiyiruppu patta.
3. I carefully considered the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Appellate Authority found that the petitioners did not produce any record to show that they are cultivating the land except the certificate of the Village Administrative Officer. Further the Appellate Authority held that the third respondent has granted the Kudiyiruppu patta in favour of the petitioners without examining any one on the side of the temple. As the management of the temple was not given any opportunity to defend or object to the claim of the petitioners, the second respondent set aside the order of the third respondent.
4. First of all it has to be considered as to whether the petitioners are entitled for the Kudiyiruppu patta as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971.
5. The objects and reasons of the Act is to confer ownership on the occupants of Kudiyiruppu. The legislation was passed conferring ownership rights on the occupants of Kudiyiruppu. Thus, assuring right of ownership on the residential premises of the agricultural population as a permanent measure. In fact, this Act is in continuation of the earlier Act viz. The Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 which prevented the landlords from evicting the agriculturists or agricultural labour from the land.
6. Section 3 of Act 40 of 1971 contemplates to provide conferment of ownership right on the occupants of Kudiyiruppu of any agriculturist or agricultural labourer who is occupying any Kudiyiruppu either as tenant or as licensee. By virtue of this provision, the occupant will become the owner of such Kudiyiruppu and such Kudiyiruppu shall vests in him absolutely from all encumbrances.
7. Section 2(8) of Act 40 of 1971 defines 'Kudiyiruppu'. As per the said provision, 'Kudiyiruppu' means the site of any dwelling house or hut occupied, either as tenant or as licensee by any agriculturist or agricultural labourer and includes such other area adjacent to the dwelling house or hut as may be necessary for the convenience of such dwelling house or hut. From this definition, it is clear that the occupant must be an agriculturist or agricultural labourer and occupies the site in the capacity of tenant or licensee.
8. Section 2(11) defines the term 'tenant'. According to the said provision, 'tenant' means any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allowed by another to enjoy the land of the latter under a tenancy agreement, express or implied.
9. In this case, admittedly the petitioners do not claim to be the tenants. The only alternative is they have to establish that they are occupying the land under a licensee. In fact that is not the case of the petitioners that they have been permitted to occupy the land.
10. The order of the original authority refers the claim of the petitioners as follows:
11. Moreover, according to the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 (Act 38 of 1961) an agriculturist is a person who cultivates agricultural land by the contribution of his own manual labour or of the manual labour of any member of his family.
12. The above statement is self-contradictory. They plead that they are doing agricultural coolie work and maintaining the temple. Taking care of the maintenance is different from poojari. In the next breath they claim that they own the temple hereditarily and looking after the same and neither the public nor the Endowment Authorities have any say or control. If their claim is that the temple is their private hereditary temple then the property also must belong to them. In that case, where is the question of looking after the land as agricultural coolie arises? Hence there is no doubt that the petitioners are not sure of their rights.
13. Only an agricultural labourer and an agriculturist is entitled for the benefit. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are the agricultural labourers. Hence the alternative is that they have to establish that they are 'agriculturists'. Here again the petitioners did not state anywhere in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions that they are personally or through their family members cultivating the land. In the absence of such a plea, the petitioners are not entitled for their claim. So when it is not established that they are the agriculturists and they are the licensees or tenants occupying the land, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked by the petitioners to claim Kudiyiruppu right.
14. Even though the Appellate Authority did not consider these aspects, there is no need to remit the matter as it will be an empty formality; especially when the petitioners failed to establish their claim as stated above. Hence the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the claim of the petitioners is sustained for the reasons given above.
15. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are dismissed.