The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner had no authority to dispose of the land granted under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act, 1963, without permission from the competent authority.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents from interfering with the lands measuring 9.90 acres in S.No.109, Vadavalli Village, Coimbatore for which ryotwari patta No.18 was granted to the petitioner on 30.09.1968 under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.

2. When this writ petition came up on 26.4.2012, this court ordered notice on admission and directed Mr.S.Kandasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the HR&CE Department to take notice. On taking notice, the learned Special Government Pleader filed a counter affidavit sworn to by the third respondent Assistant Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, HR&CE, Coimbatore, dated 23.06.2012.

3. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.M.Ramalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Kannan, learned Government Advocate for HR&CE appearing for the respondents.

4. It is the stand of the petitioner that S.No.109 measuring 9 acres of dry land is an enfranchised iruvaram inam granted and confirmed to one Kalidasan in T.D.No.37/1863 for the support of Thanneer Pandal at Vadavalli so long as he continues the performance of the service at Thanneer Pandal. The inam tenure of these lands stood abolished consequent upon the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and they have vested in the Government free of all encumbrances under Section 11 of the Act. The petitioner's husband filed an application before the Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam. He had stated that the land was in continuous and exclusive possession of his wife and her predecessor-in-title for more than 60 years and that the land was confirmed in favour of Rangasamy Gounder, the late grandfather of his wife in 1903 in a suit brought against him by Kalidasan Gounder in O.S.No.219 of 1908, dated 14.09.1909 before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. Before the said Rangasamy Gounder, his wife's grandfather came into possession of the land and it was in continuous enjoyment and possession in the year 1894 by one Ayiammal, who had adopted Rangasamy gounder as her son. A copy of the lease deed was also produced by him showing that Ayiammal had leased out the land to one Kuppusamy Gounder of Vayipalayam.

5. It was further contended that Thanneer Pandal at Vadavalli was maintained by his wife and his mother-in-law and this will continue to be maintained. In the light of these facts and certain documents produced by the petitioner, the Tahsildar held that it is an enfranchised Dharmadayam inam and it was confirmed permanently to Kalidasan for supporting the Thanneer Pandal at Vadavalli. It was a grant burdened with conditions of service, i.e., continuing the performance of the charity of Thanneer Pandal. Therefore, he had granted ryotwari patta in respect of the land subject to conditions of continuing the charity of Thanneer Pandal at Vadavalli village, by an order dated 30.09.1968.

6. Thereafter, it transpired that the petitioner wrote a letter to the Commissioner, HR&CE stating that she had sold the land in S.No.109 and plotted out as layouts and sold it for the purpose of feeding devotees of Sri Arulmighu Subrmania Swamy Temple, Marudamalai. She has been spending more than Rs.60,000/-and also doing several charity works. She had sold the property without the permission during the year 1983. Therefore, she is willing to deposit the cost of the value of the land as a permanent deposit. She wanted the Commissioner of HR&CE to recognize her sale. It also transpired that one Sri Gujan Property Developer, represented by its Partner K.Maruthachalam and one T.Ramaraju filed two writ petitions before this court being W.P.Nos.26250 and 26025 of 2011 seeking to set aside the order dated 13.5.2011 passed by the third respondent who had directed the registering authorities not to register the land which belonged to temple authoritie