Transfer of patta by Tahsildar held irregular.

Raju, J.

This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8. 1994 in W.P. No. 13634 of 1994 wherein the learned Judge has chosen to reject the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the records of the second respondent dated 24. 1994 whereunder the second respondent has set aside the order of the Tahsildar, Perundurai Taluk, dated 21. 1994

transferring the patta relating to the lands in question in favour of the appellants. The appellants are admittedly poojaris of Arulmigu Vijayapuriamman at Kovilpalayam of Erode Taluk. Even in the affidavit, it is admitted that the lands in question were granted for the pagoda of Sri Vijayapuriamman Devasthanam at Kovilpalayam, Erode Taluk and the said grant was confirmed by the British Government permanently to the pagoda so long as it was well kept up. It is also claimed that the lands were in possession of one Swami Pandaram who was doing service to the temple.

.2. The lands were considered to be minor inam lands notified under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963) and that the lands were taken over on and from the appointed date, viz., 12. 1965. The Settlement Tahsildar IV, Erode has considered the question of issue or ryotwari patta under the provisions of the above Act after following the due procedure and issuing notices as contemplated under the statute. The first appellant Palani Pandaram, son of Kanti Pandaram, appear to have been examined as witnesses on behalf of the claimants and after careful consideration of the materials placed before him, the settlement Tahsildar, in exercise of his powers under Sec.8(2)(ii) of the Act read with Rule 42 of the Rules issued a ryotwari patta in the name of the deity represented by the service holders in his proceedings in No.S.R.718 of 1989. Act 30 of 1963 Erode Taluk dated 30.11.1969. This order, passed by the competent statutory authority does not appear to have been challenged in the manner known to and is as permissible under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963. Instead, the appellants appear to have moved Tahsildar, Perundurai to transfer the patta in their names accepting a lump sum payment in lieu of the liability to render services and grant ryotwari patta in favour of the appellants. The Tahsildar by his proceedings dated 21. 1994 appears to have determined a sum of Rs.53,680 as the sum payable in lieu of the services to be rendered and thereupon passed an order for the transfer of patta subject to the payment of the said amount and patta was also transferred. It is at this stage, a community of people, said to be the worshippers, and even claiming to be entitled to the temple, have objected before the District Revenue Officeragainst the order of the Tahsildar. The District Revenue Officer by the order impugned in the writ petition, has set aside the order of the Tahsildar on the ground that the transfer of patta ordered is contrary to the provisions of law. It was also noticed by the second respondent that the fact that the whole of the land belongs to the temple is also an accepted fact having been declared so by the judgment of the Sub Court, Erode, in O.S. No.212 of 1948 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore and that therefore, the move of the appellants, to claim before the Tahsildar to treat the land as temple poramboke and get patta transferred in their name, cannot be countenanced. Aggrieved appellants have filed the above writ petition.

3. The learned single Judge also had gone into the matter elaborately and in the context of the copy of the order granting patta produced before him, which showed that the land was with the temple and the ryotwari patta was also granted under the statute in the name of the deity represented by the service holder and, therefore, the appellants could not get the patta transferred in their names even on payment of