Dispossession of land without following procedure and giving opportunity of being heard not proper.

1. Since these writ petitions arise out of a common order of the respondents 1 to 4 they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Sivaganga Samasthanam Devasthanam has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writs in the nature of certiorari calling for the entire records of the first respondent comprised in his proceedings in pa. mu. (1) 498/84 dated 28.5.1985, that of the third respondent in Roc. A3/31472/82 dated 10.2.1983 and that of the fourth respondent in H.S.D.A. No. 106/90 dated 16.5.81 and quash the said proceedings.

3. Facts in short are as follows:— Arulmighu Valmiganathasamy Temple, a temple attached to the petitioner Devasthanam, is situated in survey No. 82/1 of Thiruvettriyur village, Tiruvadanai Taluk, the lands belonging to the temple were however classified as Natham in the village accounts. These lands originally belonged to the erstwhile Rajahs and Zamindars who gifted the lands to the temple. In Survey No. 82/1, there is a temple tank which according to the petitioner, was intended for the worshippers to m ake ablutions before entering into the temple for worship and cater to the needs of the villagers as an additional source of water supply for drinking and other purposes. The area around the temple, according to the petitioner, belongs to the temple. The 5th respondent in each case was inducted as tenants in respect of a small area of land 0.00.5 hectare appurtenant to the tank for the purpose of using it as a vending stall for selling plastic goods, coconut and other pooja materials for the worshipping public. As tenants they paid the rents to the temple. All of a sudden however they approached the 4th respondent for the assignment of the land occupied by them and the 4th respondent without proper appreciation of the facts, according to the petitioner, granted assignment in favour of the 5th respondent in each case to the extent of 0.00.5 hectare in his proceedings dated 16.5.81. The petitioner preferred appeal before the third respondent. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 10.2.1983 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a revision before the second respondent. The second respondent made enquiries into the title and by his order dated 16.12.1983 allowed the petition and set aside the order of the 3rd and 4th respondents. The 5th respondent in each case this time moved some sort of a petition before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent set aside the order of the 2nd respondent and affirmed that of the 3rd and 4th respondents.

4. According to the petitioner, the classification of the land as Natham poramboke was a mistake and in any event since the land was in possession of the petitioner, it did not come under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 and never vested with the Government. The 5th respondent in each case was inducted as tenants by the petitioner and paid rents to the petitioner. They could not claim any settlement of such a land with themselves ignoring the rights of the petitioner and thus creating some sort of relationship of land-lord and tenant between the Government on the one and themselves on the other. According to the respondents however since the lands were classified as Natham poramboke as a result of the enforcement of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, all rights upon the land stood transferred to the State Government and thus after the enforcement of the Act, the petitioner ceased to have any title or right to possess the land. Even though the 5th respondent in each case was inducted by the petitioner as tenants upon the land, the State Government was within its rights in settling the land in favour of the 5th respondent in each case.

5. There can be no dispute that as a consequence of notification of the estate under the Act, the entire estate including all communal lands, poramokes, other non-ryoti lands, waste lands, pasture lands, l