Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the pattas have been cancelled on the premise that the families of Duraisamy Iyer and Ramanuja Iyer, who were granted ryotwari patta, have alienated the property in violation of the conditions of the patta dated 1.6.1968. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.6440/2022, etc., Batch

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel that though the lands in question are admittedly ‘Devadayam’, the archakas aforesaid were granted ryotwari patta and the only condition imposed is that they and their legal heirs shall continue to render puja servie to the temple and deities. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that it is not disputed by the respondents that the legal heirs of the original pattadars are still doing puja in the temple even today and that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is not providing any fund for the day to-day administration of the temple and conduct f puja and that money for the day to-day affairs of the temple, including performance of puja is being shelled out by the archakas. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that to meet the expenses of the temple as also the livelihood of the archakars, the lands, which were given by way of conditional patta, were alienated in pieces.

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even prior to the grant of patta, both the warams were with the archakas of the temple. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that if there is violation in the service inam by the patta holder, Rule 19 contemplates the conduct of enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is the further submission that the UDR patta granted to the petitioners in the year 1987, after taking note of the entire materials. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, being a party to the settlement proceedings in the year 1968 was well aware that there was no condition or prohibition for alienation and no appeal having filed against the same, the said order passed in 1968 granting conditional patta to the archakas had attained finality and in such a backdrop, the 2nd respondent has got no power to conduct enquiry and pass the impugned order cancelling the patta and reverse the patta back to the temple as the enquiry itself is defective and conducted by an authority without jurisdiction. Further, notice as contemplated under Rule 19 has not been issued. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.6440/2022, etc., Batch

(W.P. No.13589/2021 – Dated 11.8.2021)

11. Learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5, placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondent by the 4th respondent, submitted that the subject lands, by way of donation by the village, vested with the temple deity, Sri Adinarayanaswamy, even as early as in the year 1862. It is the further submission that the subject lands were originally managed by Ambayana Madam and that there exists no hereditary trustee or hereditary pujaris appointed for the temple and that the subject lands were classified as ‘Devadayam Inam Lands’. Based on the request of the archakas of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.6440/2022, etc., Batch Adinarayanaswamy temple, individuals were assigned conditional ryotwari patta were granted to the individuals with condition to carry out pujas at the temple. In effect, the archakas were given pattas for the temple land was on the condition that they perform the pujas continuously to the Presiding Deity and any infraction would result in the cancellation of the said patta. This itself clearly shows that alienation is prohibited and that the lands are to be strictly used for the benefit of the temple. The alienation by the legal heirs of the original pattadars is in stark violation of the conditions of grant of ryotwari patta.