Compliance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act, 1963, and the requirement of a 'No Objection Certificate' for registration of temple lands.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

The writ petitioner is the appellant and aggrieved by the communication sent by the second respondent, dated 19.04.2011, to the first respondent, not to register the documents pertaining to Vadugapatti S.Nos.130/2, 131/1 and 131/2 belonging to Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Temple, Viralimalai, had filed W.P(MD)No.3344 of 2013. The said writ petition was entertained and notices were ordered.

2. A Single Bench of this Court, vide impugned order dated 02.04.2014, has found that there is no dispute in accepting the principle that if the condition is complied with and the entire amount is paid, as per the patta proceedings, the petitioner has to be considered as the absolute owner. But, in the instant case, the temple had denied the receipt of the said amount and so far no order has been issued to release the properties from the temple service and no order has been passed in respect of issuance of ryotwari patta to the individuals and therefore, granted liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Pudukkottai District, for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' and the said official was directed to consider the representation submitted in that regard and pass appropriate orders as to the issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The appellant/writ petitioner, aggrieved by the mode of disposal vide impugned order dated 02.04.2014, has filed this writ appeal.

3. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are as follows:

3.1. The appellant/writ petitioner would state that he is doing religious service, more particularly, 'Nadaswara Service' in Arulmighu Subramaniaswamy Temple, Viralimalai and for that purpose, was allotted with certain items of landed properties as 'service inams' comprised in S.Nos.130/2, 131/1, 131/2, 189/4 and 190/4, Illupur Taluk, Pudukkottai District, admeasuring to an extent of 12.56 acres and claimed that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and also was doing the said service during the time of inam abolition and also paid the consideration amount as required under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.

3.2. The appellant/writ petitioner would further aver that the District Collector, Pudukkottai, has also granted patta in Patta No. 105, vide proceedings dated 12.07.1976 in Na.AA.B2/335/75 and the said order has reached finality and as such, he is the absolute owner of the landed properties and also enjoying the same without any disturbance from anybody. The appellant/writ petitioner has also stated that due to financial constraint, he is forced to sell some portion of the landed properties and sold about 40 cents of land to one Sournam Ammal on 23.01.1986 and would further stated that due to his old age, he is not in a position to maintain himself and had to sell 2-1/2 acres out of 8 acres of the landed properties in favour of one Rajendran, to meet out his medical expenses and accordingly, executed a sale deed dated 29.12.2011 in his favour after receipt of the sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). The purchaser, namely, Rajendran, presented the said sale deed for registration to the first respondent, however, it was not registered and therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.1409 of 2012 and it was disposed of on 23.02.2012 with a direction directing the first respondent to dispose of the application for registration within a period of eight weeks. The appellant/writ petitioner armed with the said order had approached the first respondent, however, he was issued with the impugned notice issued by the second respondent to the first respondent dated 19.04.2011 and challenging the legality of the said notice, h