A religious institution holding Melvaram is entitled to payment of dastic allowance under Section 20(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, regardless of the grant of patta to the occupant.

(E. PADMANABHAN, J)

1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the Executive Officer of Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam, Srirangam being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20th September, 1991 made in W.P. No. 8168 of 1983.

2. Heard Mr. P. Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V. Rengaraju, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

3. The only and substantial point that arise for consideration in this appeal is: —

Whether the appellant is entitled to payment of Dastic allowance under Section 20 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963?

4. Mr. P. Gopalan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge had misconstrued Section 20 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice as well as denial of dastic-allowance. According to the learned counsel, either under sub-Section (1) of Section 20 or under sub Section (2) of Section 20 the appellant, by being a religious institution which holds the melvaram in respect of the suit lands is entitled for payment of dastic allowance in terms of Section 20 of the Act.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate contends that no interference is called for with respect to the order passed by the learned Single Judge and having failed in its attempt to get patta, the appellant cannot seek for payment of dastic allowance.

6. The short facts leading to the appeal could be summarised briefly: — In respect of Survey No: 46 covered by T.D.No: 1604 of H. Vellodu Village. Initially patta was ordered to be granted in favour of the appellant-temple by the Settlement Tahsildar. As against the said patta proceedings the occupants preferred an appeal before the Inams Abolition Tribunal which Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar and remanded the case to the Settlement Tahsildar for de novo proce edings. After remand, the Settlement Tahsildar rejected the claim of the appellant and directed grant of patta favour of Muthu Naicker, occupant in Survey No. 46 under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 treating the land as personal grant to the person rendering services. Being aggrieved by the said order of Settlement Tahsildar the appellant-temple preferred an appeal before the Inams Abolition Tribunal, Madurai. The said Tribunal by order dated 17.7.1976 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the Settlement Tahsildar. The order of the Tribunal has become final. Thereafter the appellant-temple moved the Settlement Officer for direction to pay dastic allowance The claim of dastic allowance had been rejected by the settlement officer on the sole ground that the petitioner had allowed the proceedings of the Inams Abolition Tribunal to become final. Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the settlement officer rejecting the claim for payment of dastic allowance the appellant moved the first respondent, who by proceedings dated 21.3.1983 rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the said rejection the appellant filed the writ petition No. 8168 of 1983 on the file of this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant-temple is not entitled for payment of dastic allowance under the Tamil Nadu Act 30/63. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the present appeal has been preferred.

7. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that though patta was granted in favour of the appellant-temple while applying the rule of presumption that the Inam was a Iruvaram grant, but subsequently after remand patta was granted to the occupant under Section 8(1) of the Act as it was held that the occupant is entitled to Kudivaram while holding the statutory presumption has no application to the facts of the case. A patta has been ordered to be issued ultimately in favour of the occupant under Section 8(1) of the Act. That being so, it is clear that the occupant namely the perso