Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The short facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as could be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the petition are as under:-

Lands to an extent of 8.50 acres in S. No.69, Kurudampalayam Village, Coimbatore, as an unenfranchised Iruvaram Devadayam Inam was granted and confirmed in T.D. No.28 of Coimbatore Taluk for the support of the Pagoda of Virudheeswarar Swami Temple. It is the case of the petitioner that the Inam tenure of the land stood abolished consequent to the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) and stood vested in the Government free of all encumbrances u/s 3 (b) of the Act. It is the further averment of the petitioner that suo motu enquiry was conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam, by following all the procedures prescribed under the Act and, thereafter, the petitioner’s husband R.Swaminathan & Father-in-law, Subramania Mudaliar, were granted patta in their capacity as service holders of the temple.

9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the Settlement Tahsildar, on the basis of the Inam Fair Register, in which entries had been made that the subject land was an unenfranchised Devadayam Inam and granted permanently in 1863 for the up-keep of the Temple so long as they are well kept. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that both warams were to be utilized for the benefit of the temple and not to any individual. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

19. There is no quarrel with regard to the subject land being given for the support of the Pagoda of Virudheeswarar Temple and that unenfranchised Iruvaram Devadayam Inam was granted and confirmed way back in the year 1862. The issue that is sought to be canvassed is that the patta granted is a personal patta and not a patta in favour of the Temple and that the name change in the patta during the resurvey and resettlement proceedings is wholly impermissible as the lands were granted to the petitioner’s husband and one Subramania Mudaliar in their capacity as service holders of the temple. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________

24. On the contrary, the respondents have placed a report of the Special Deputy Collector dated 25.8.1973 along with material records relating to the original grant. Before adverting to the aforesaid materials, it would be proper for this Court to find out the materials on the basis of which the petitioner claims patta to the subject lands.

25. The affidavit of the petitioner discloses that initially the lands were granted as Iruvaram Devadayam Inam to Virudheeswara Swami Temple and later, upon enactment of the Act, the lands vested with the Government and, thereafter, upon initiation of suo motu enquiry, the Settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam issued ryotwari pattas to the petitioner’s husband, viz., Swaminathan and her father-in-law, Subramania Mudaliar in their capacity as service holders of the temple. The petitioner has further stated in the affidavit that patta was altered from the name of her husband and father-in-law to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ name of the temple during resurvey proceedings. It further transpires that as the petitioner’s husband and father-in-law passed away and on coming to know the alteration of name in the patta, the petitioner has filed the representation for rectification of patta. It is to be pointed out that during the lifetime of the petitioner’s husband and her father-in-law, no claim was made by either of the person to claim patta in their name, inspite of the fact that alleged resurvey proceedings had resulted in the change of patta in the name of the temple. Further, it is curious to note as to how the petitioner had come to have knowledge about the change of name in the patta during the alleged resurvey proceedings, which necessitated the petitioner to approach the Assistant Settlement Officer for rectification of patta.