Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 826
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S. Kalaivani & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Principal Secretary, Tourism & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD)Nos. 1665 of 2018 to 1669 of 2018 & WMP(MD)Nos. 1762 to 1776 of 2018
Decided On : 07-02-2018
For the Petitioners:B. Saravanan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ayiram K.Selvakumar, Additional Government Pleader
The main legal point established in the judgment is that ownership or title cannot be decided in writ proceedings, and the petitioners must establish their title or ownership before the competent authorities.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act - Ownership Recognition - Section 38, Section 41, Section 22 A of the Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 38 and Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, which deal with the entitlement of temple authorities to compel the performance of service of charge and the nullity of certain property transactions. The court also considered Section 22 A of the Registration Act, 1908, which empowers the third respondent to refuse to register documents related to the transfer of immovable property belonging to religious institutions. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought recognition of their ownership over land purchased from bona fide sellers, which was later found to be classified as Service Inam land with a charge created for a temple. They argued that the orders preventing the sale of the land were in contravention of the relevant legal provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner were internal communications to prevent illegal registration of temple lands and did not provide a cause of action for the writ petitions. It held that the petitioners had not established a legal right or cause of action for the relief sought.
Issues: Recognition of ownership, validity of orders preventing sale, entitlement of temple authorities, and the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to provide information to the Registration Department.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions, the nature of the orders issued, and the lack of cause of action established by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that ownership or title cannot be decided in the present writ proceedings and that the petitioners should establish their title or ownership before the competent authorities.
1. The orders passed by the second respondent in proceedings dated 16.07.2013 are under challenge in these writ petitions. Further direction is sought for to grant sanction recognizing the ownership of the petitioners over the said land within the time limit fixed by this Court.
2. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by way of a common order.
3. At the outset the writ petitioners seek recognition of their respective ownership in respect of the lands owned by them. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners made submissions that one Mr.Namasivayam, S/O. Suthangkaathan Chettiyar was the owner of the landed properties in Survey Nos.63/8, 63/9, 64/6, 64/7, 64/8, 64/9, 66/1, 66/2, 67/1, 72/3, 72/4, 72/5, 73/3, 73/4 & 73/5, 66/7, 67/3, 67/7, 69/3, 69/6, 69/8, 70/1, 70/8, 71/3, 72/6 & 73/8, 19/18, 12, 10, 19, 5, 13, 20, 9, 11, 14, 17 & 8, 18/7, 8, 5, 2, 3 & 4, 76/1 to 11, 77/2 to 77/15, 79/1 to 9, 82/1 to 11, 85/2 & 3, 9A Natham Pannai Village, Thirugokarnam Circle, Pudukottai Taluk, Pudukottai District. The lands were divided into residential plots in the name and style of Maruthupandi Nagar and the approval was granted by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Sivagangai in proceedings Ma.Pa.No.23/86. The writ petitioners had purchased the plots and sale deeds were executed in respect of the said plots.
4. The writ petitioners state that they are the bonafide purchasers of their respective plots and the sale deeds were executed in their favour. The petitioners had obtained the required building permission from the competent authority and thereafter constructed residential buildings from and out of their hard earned money. When the writ petitioners made enquiry with the 3rd respondent about the value of the property, it was informed that the sale of the property is barred by law, as the property is classified as Service Inam and Charge has been created upon the property to do service to the 4th respondent Sri Pragathambal Temple, Thirugokarnam, Pudukottai District. As per the documents, original owner of the property is liable to render service to the 4th respondent temple and therefore, the property cannot be sold and no sale deed can be executed as the property is Service Inam land.
5. Under these circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the orders dated 16.07.2013 has been passed by the 2nd respondent, furnishing the details of the landed property including survey numbers and the extent belonging to the 4th respondent temple in as many as 33 villages including 9A Natham Panni Village. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had purchased the land from and out of their hard earned money and by obtaining due building permission, constructed the residential houses and some petitioners borrowed loan from the banks and the Government. The Government authorities had sanctioned loan only after verifying all the documents and therefore there cannot be any doubt in respect of the title and ownership of the petitioners in respect of the plots purchased by them. It is contended that as per Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage or any lease for a terms exceeding 5 years of the whole is null and void.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners referred Section 38 of the Act, and cited that the orders impugned dated 16.07.2013, is directly in contravention to the provision of the Act itself and as per Sections 38 and 41 of the Act, a harmonious reading of the said provisions makes it clear that the temple authorities are entitled to compel the performances of the service of charge by the person, who is in possession of the property on which such service is charged. Section 38 (2) of the Act also makes it clear that the person in possession is entitled to claim the amount which has been paid to the person responsible in law for the perfor
