Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3(a). It is the case of the first respondent that since the lands were inam lands, the Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, viz., the second respondent has been addressed a letter on 27.12.2005 and the second respondent by his letter dated 20.01.2006 has informed that the above lands were given to the temple under Devadayam Inam, which is a service inam in respect of which patta should not be granted to any person, since the lands belong to the temple.

3(b). It is the case of the first respondent that thereafter the Government Pleader, Coimbatore by his letter dated 25.01.2006 has confirmed that after the Settlement Tahsildar passed order on 29.09.1968, the same was notified in the Government gazette and the copy was served to the second respondent, as seen from the original order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar and in spite of it no appeal was filed and therefore, the order of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 29.09.1968 has become final. He has also found that for the claim of the second respondent that patta is in the name of Uthandarayar Kovil, there is no evidence and even as per the order of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 29.09.1968, the Temple has not been given any right and therefore, at this later point of time the second respondent Department cannot claim any right over the property without any evidence.

3(c). In spite of it, the second respondent has raised an objection on 14.02.2006 stating that the lands are in the name of deity to do pooja and therefore no patta should be given to anybody and it was in those circumstances the first respondent has informed the petitioners under the impugned order to approach the civil Court for remedy. The first respondent in the counter even though has admitted that the Tahsildar is bound to carry out changes in the revenue records based on the Settlement Tahsildar's order, it is stated that the lands in question were given to the Temple under Devadayam Inam and the second respondent is the owner and since the second respondent has objected to the same, no order can be passed.

4. The third respondent Temple, which was impleaded as a party, in the counter affidavit, while denying all the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, has stated that the third respondent Temple has been endowed with Inam lands in T.D.No.240 and in S.F.No.103 of extent 6.49 acres and S.F.No.105 extent 3.46 acres. It is an unenfranchised Devadayam Inam land. According to the third respondent, it is not as if the Kudivaram right was held by one Nadha Gounder, but both melvaram and kudivaram were granted in favour of the Temple. Regarding the decision in the civil suit, it is the case of the third respondent that it is not bound by the same, since it was not a party. It is the further case of the third respondent that the Settlement Tahsildar while passing order on 29.09.1968 has not taken any steps to include the persons in management of the Temple. According to the third respondent, the records show that one Avinashilinga Pandaram and one Chinnia Gounder were in management of the temple and none of them or their successors in interest were enquired and therefore the enquiry conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar under Section 8 of the Act should be treated as a nullity. It is the further case of the third respondent that the predecessors in title of the petitioners themselves have no right and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the property. It is the case of the third respondent that in page number 22, it is mentioned as Uthandi Royar Temple inam land. It is the further case of the third respondent that the Settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam has not conducted enquiry at all. No persons of temple management were enquired before granting ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioners' predecessors. The temple was not properly administered by the villagers at that time and therefore, according to the third respondent, the H.R. & C.E. Department has appointed him as Fit Person to the third respondent temple on 17.2.2006. After knowing about the order of the Settlement Tahsildar on 29.07.2006, the third respondent has applied for certified copy of the said order dated 29.09.1968, and filed appeal in CFR No.47732/06 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore against the order of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 29.09.1968, to set aside the same. According to the third respondent, an appeal remedy is provided under Section 11(3) of the Act.

12. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Settlement Tahsildar acting as per the powers of the Act,1963 has conducted a suo-motu enquiry after causing wide publication as required under the Rules in respect of the subject matter of land which is concerned in the present writ petition. In fact, the Settlement Tahsildar has referred to TD.No.240, which in the form of unenfranchised Devadayam Inam. The Settlement Tahsildar has relied upon the judgement of the High Court in Second Appeal No.301 of 1889 dated 14.02.1890, wherein it was held that the grant of inam land to the temple consisting only melvaram and not iruvaram and the temple did not own any kudivaram right in the land, since the kudivaram right was exclusively owned by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners,viz., Ayi Gounder. In the enquiry by Settlement Tahsildar as per the Act, the Karnam of the Village was examined as C.W.1, who filed a true copy of the Inam B-Register marked as Ex.C.1 and deposed that there is no temple by name Muttathu Royan in existence in the Village. That evidence was also supported by the further evidence of Settlement Inspector, Gobichettipalayam, who was examined C.W.2 and he filed a True Extract of Inam Fair Register relating to the T.D. marked as Ex.C.2. The Settlement Tahsildar found that even though under Ex.C.2 the land in question is stated as unenfranchised Devadayam Inam granted in support of Muttathu Royan temple, the evidence of C.W.1 shows that the temple is not in existence for quite a long time and in addition to that the High Court has also made a final judgement as stated above that the temple itself was having only Melvaram and not Kudivaram right.