The main legal point established is that any inam granted to a service-holder of a religious institution is deemed to be a religious endowment for the benefit of the temple, and patta does not confer title but only possessory rights.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings K1/15630/2002 dated 4.12.2016 and quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to carry out the corrections as directed by the ASO, Dharapuram and reissue the patta in terms of order dated 28.3.2001 in the name of the petitioner.)

1. Assailing the cancellation of patta ordered by the 4th respondent, which has been, in principle confirmed by the 1st respondent by remitting the matter for fresh consideration, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present petition contending it to be perverse, arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.

2. The short facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as could be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the petition are as under:-

Lands to an extent of 8.50 acres in S. No.69, Kurudampalayam Village, Coimbatore, as an unenfranchised Iruvaram Devadayam Inam was granted and confirmed in T.D. No.28 of Coimbatore Taluk for the support of the Pagoda of Virudheeswarar Swami Temple. It is the case of the petitioner that the Inam tenure of the land stood abolished consequent to the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) and stood vested in the Government free of all encumbrances u/s 3 (b) of the Act. It is the further averment of the petitioner that suo motu enquiry was conducted by the Settlement Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam, by following all the procedures prescribed under the Act and, thereafter, the petitioner’s husband R.Swaminathan & Father-in-law, Subramania Mudaliar, were granted patta in their capacity as service holders of the temple.

3. It is the further averment of the petitioner that during the resurvey proceedings, the name in the patta was altered to the name of the temple without any notice to the petitioner’s husband. The petitioner’s husband and father-in-law passed away in the interregnum and, therefore, the petitioner and her children became entitled to the property. Coming to know about the alteration of the name in the patta, the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for rectification of patta and to issue a fresh patta in her name and in the name of her children, as the legal heirs of R.Swaminathan and Subramania Mudaliar. It is the further averment of the petitioner that after detailed enquiry, the Assistant Settlement Officer opined, through his order, that the alteration of patta in the name of the temple is wrong and, therefore, passed orders directing the Tahsildar to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue records to reflect the name of the petitioner and her children in the patta, vide order dated 28.3.2001.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, on the application of the petitioner to the 4th respondent for reissuance of patta in terms of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 28.3.2001, the 4th respondent rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.03 against which appeal was filed before the 3rd respondent, which was too rejected vide order dated 7.6.05. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was also dismissed against which revision was preferred before the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent, unmindful of the relief sought for by the petitioner, had gone ahead and set aside the very order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and had ordered for a fresh enquiry by the Settlement Officer under the Act, which has resulted in the petitioner coming before this Court to ventilate her grievance.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent has gone beyond his jurisdiction and scope of the revision petition