SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAJA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
Fit Person, Arulmigu Vettaikurumagan Thirukoil, Nilgiri & Others - Appellants
Versus
Nilambur Kovilakam Common Properties, Rep.by its Executive Officer, T.N. Ashokavarnan & Others - Respondents
W.A. Nos. 1243, 635, 812 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided on : 17-11-2021

Advocate Appeared:
V. Manohar, Govt., Advocate, K. Ashok Kumar, A.U. Ilango, T. Arun Anbumani, C.K. Chandrasekar, P.V. Ravichandran, Advocates, Harsha, HR & CE.

Headnote:

Societies Registration Act - Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act,1926 - Section 84 - Tamil Nadu Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1968 - Letter of Patent - Section 15 - Land - Janmam estate - Entire of Nilgiris District was part of estate, namely Estate - Estates were eastern most part of, part of Malabar State originally ruled - There is a temple, known as Temple or Vettarayasamy Temple in which main deity “Betarayasvami” or “Vettarayaswami”, "Lord of Hunt" and deity is represented in form of a Sword - Temple structure is like any other Kerala Hindu Temple Architecture and is situated on an extent of land admeasuring 0.35.0 Hectare or Acre 0.86 cents in Village S. No. District - In exercise of its powers under Section 84 of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act,1926 said temple along with 8 other temples under the were declared as public Temples – Held, Learned Single Judge has held that will be entitled to superstructure alone and they cannot deal with land on which temple is situated in any manner whatsoever - Dual ownership is a recognized concept in India and therefore such an approach cannot be faulted with - In this context, learned Counsel appearing for fit person would raise a further submission that once land becomes public, there cannot be a private temple over same - It is to be noted that private temple was originally located on land only and it is only by the subsequent intervention of statute and by way of statutory proceedings under Act, the rights of parties over land being altered - Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals have been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order dated 23.10.2013 passed in W.P.No.4135 of 2013 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.)

A. The Appeals:

These three writ appeals are filed against the Order dated 23/10/2013 in W.P. No.4135 of 2013 and relate to Sri Vettaikorumagan Temple, Namabalakota, Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris District. W. A. No.635 of 214 has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur to whom a direction is issued by the Learned Judge to entrust the temple to the private entity, the first respondent. W.A.No.812 of 2014, has been filed by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, which claims to represent the Mandadan Chetti community living in the area, namely “The Nilgiris District Mandadan (Moundadan) Chetti Community Association”, which was the second respondent in the writ petition. W.A. No.1243 of 2014 has been filed by the ‘Fit Person, Arulmigu Vettaikorumagan Thirukoil’ appointed by the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department to the temple, as a third party after obtaining leave of this Court. The contesting first respondent/writ petitioner in the appeals is the Trust, namely Nilambur Kovilakam Common Properties represented by its Executive Officer T.N. Ashokavaraman Tirumalpad, which is legal representative of the family/descendants of Raja of Nilambur. In the Writ Appeal No. 635 of 2014, filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudalur, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE department, Coimbatore as the Third respondent. In Writ Appeal No. 812 of 2014, Sri Sivan Malai Valarchi Matrum Samuga Nala Arakattalai, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, was impleaded as the third respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the three appellants are referred to as “The RDO”, “The Fit Person” and “The Mandadan Association” in this judgment. The contesting first respondent/writ petitioner is referred to as “Nilambur Kovilakam”. The department is referred to as “HR&CE” and the Sivan Malai Valarchi Matrum Samuga Nala Arakkatalai as the “Devotees Trust”.

B. Facts Leading to the present Appeals:

3. Originally, the entire Gudalur Taluk of the Nilgiris District was part of the Janmam estate, namely Gudalur Janmam Estate. The Gudalur Janmam estates were the eastern most part of the Nilambur Kovilakam, part of the Malabar State originally ruled by the Raja of Nilambur. There is a temple, known as Vettaikorumagan Temple or Vettarayasamy Temple in which the main deity “Betarayasvami” or “Vettarayaswami”, the "Lord of the Hunt" and the deity is represented in the form of a Sword. The temple structure is like any other Kerala Hindu Temple Architecture and is situated on an extent of land admeasuring 0.35.0 Hectare or Acre 0.86 cents in Cherumulli Village S. No. 666/1, Gudalur Taluk, Niligiris District.

4. By an Order bearing ref: 3222, etc., dated 21/12/1936, in exercise of its powers under Section 84 of The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act,1926 the said temple along with 8 other temples under the Nilambur Kovilakam were declared as public Temples. Of the said orders being passed on the same day, two orders relating to other temples bearing ref:3223 and 3224 alone are on record before us and the original order in No.3222 in respect of the subject matter Nambalakota Temple is not on record. It appears that all these orders were passed by the Board exparte since the Trustee of the Nilambur Kovilakam did not appear before it on the day of hearing. Thereafter, M.P. No. 24 of 1937, has been filed by the Nilambur Kovilakam and when the hearing took place, the other side remained exparte and therefore they were set exparte and by an order dated 02/07/1937, the Nambalakota Temple alone was declared as Private Temple. The Trustees of the Temple, and the contesting parties namely, the then representatives of the Mandadan Association others being absent for the hearing, the above declaration was made by the Board. The

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top