SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Raj) 2400

[Citation : RLW 2006(1) RJ (SC) 33]
(Supreme Court)
Jt. Comm., H.R. & C.E.A.D. Vs. Jayaraman (Variava, J.)
HON'BLE S.N. VARIAVA, J.;
HON'BLE P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.;
HON'BLE P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.
Joint Commissioner, H.R. & Central Excise Administration Department
Versus
Jayaraman and Others
Appel (Civil) 1913 of 2004, decided on 20.10.2005

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Sec. 34, 63; Indian Trust Act, 1882, Sec. 34 and Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Sec. 21 — By the grant of government land had been dedicated to temples — District Judge passed the orders in the application filed u/Sec. 34 of the Indian Trust Act granting permission to claimants to sell property, was confirmed by High Court — Held — Government land was dedicated to the temples for the up-keep of public temples — It was a private trust coming within purview of Indian Trust Act — Permission granted for the sale set-aside — Revised order of settlement Tehsildar and the revised patta granted are not binding on the deities. (Paras 10 to 13)

       Appeal allowed.

       It is seen that going by the prevalent valuation and the market value as reported, the lands were sold for a meager price or that the sale deeds indicated only a meager price as consideration for the same with all that it implies. Such a transaction is clearly seen to be not in good faith. That the District Court proceeded to accept the value for which the property was being sold even without making an enquiry into the market value that the properties would have fetched at the relevant time while giving the permission for the sale, is shocking. The jurisdiction under Section 34 is advisory. The Court should have satisfied itself of the need for sale and the propriety of the sale proposed. The mere pleas that it was difficult to protect the property and that there was only meager income therefrom were by themselves not grounds to direct or permit the sale. (Para 11)

       The permission granted for the sale would also stand set aside and the sale effected by the claimants pursuant to such permission will be deemed void and would confer no right on the purchasers thereunder or on any one claiming under or through them. It is also clarified that the revised order of the Settlement Tahsildar under Act 30 of 1963 and the revised patta granted are not binding on the deities or on the H.R & C.E. Department. The appellant would be entitled to its costs both here and in the High Court. (Para 13)

       .

Honble BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.—An extent of 10.38 acres of land, which was government land and situated around four temples, namely, Keelakottai Sri. Vinayagar Temple, Muthampatti Sri Vinayagar Temple, Mottakottai Sri Vinayagar Temple and Mariamman and Bhagavathiamman Temples were set apart by the British Government for the purpose of the use of its income for the poojas and maintenance of the temples. The land was put in the possession of one Veerana Pandaram, who was the poojari. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein, the descendants of Veerana Pandaram filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai, under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the H.R & C.E. Act) praying that they may be declared as hereditary trustees cum poojaries of the Mariamman and Bhagavathiamman Temples. This application was made, when after an enquiry, a preliminary report was made by the Special Inspector, to the Assistant Commissioner of H.R & C.E. Administration Department, Madurai, to the effect that the lands endowed and belonging to the temples, are being enjoyed by the three poojaries, who render pooja services. The poojaries were taking the income, but were not maintaining any accounts. As various development works had to be done in the temple, the lands may be assessed to contribution from the concerned falsi. The Special Inspector also suggested that show cause notices be issued to the poojaries regarding the appointment of trustees for the temple. In their application, the successors of Veerana Pandaram prayed in terms of Section 63(b) of the H.R & C.E. Act, that they and the three respondents to the said application, may be declared as hereditary trustees of both the temples, the office as hereditary and them as the trustees of Mariamman and Bhagavathiamman Temples. By order dated 4.10.1972, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, declared that the applicants before him are holding the office of trusteeship cum poojariship of Mariamman and Bhagavathiamman Temples at Keelakottai village, Dindigul Taluk, Madurai district hereditarily. No declaration was given regarding the rights of the applicants, since no court fee was paid for the grant of such a relief. Thus, the successors of Veerana Pandaram were recognized as trustees of the temples. Subsequently, the Settlement Tahsildar, Madurai passed an order on 31.03.1968 for issue of ryotwari pattas for lands covered by four title deeds referred to in that order, in favour of the four institutions represented by respondent Nos. 1 to 7. The respondents appear to have belatedly challenged the said order before the Appellate Tribunal. Neither the deity nor the H.R & C.E. Department was impleaded in the appeal which was filed four years after the order of the Settlement Tahsildar. That appeal is seen to have been allowed and the matter remitted for a fresh consideration by the Settlement Tahsildar. It was noticed in the order of remand that the H.R & C.E. Department was not impleaded, and that it was necessary to implead the Department for an effective adjudication. In spite of it, it is seen that the respondents did not bring on record the H.R & C.E. Department or the deity in the array of parties, before the Settlement Tahsildar. The order does not also show that notice was issued either to the deity or to the Department. That no notice was issued is seen admitted by the respondents before the High Court of Madras in a revision filed by them against the order refusing to grant a stay pending a revision filed by them against the proposal to appoint a fit person under the H.R & C.E. Act in their place. The said order of the High Court dated 7.6.2002 is annexed as Annexure P-II and in paragraph 4 thereof, it is recorded by the learned Judge that:

"The petitioners (the contesting respondents herein) would further submit that in none of the above referred proceedings, the H.R & C.E. Authoriti
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top