Alienation of lands granted on the condition of rendering puja service to a temple is prohibited and any such alienation is void.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records in pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.01.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent/District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri, in connection with the impugned order of cancellation of patta in her proceedings in Na.Ka. No.15881/2019/Pa2 dated 11.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue patta in the name of the petitioner within the time limit fixed by this Court.)

Common Order

1. The cancellation of patta, which had been granted in favour of the respective petitioners upon purchase of the lands from the legal heirs of the original pattadars, on the premise that the lands in issue are ‘Devadayam’ lands and that it belongs to the ‘Arulmighu Adhinarayanaswamy Temple’ passed by the 2nd respondent, viz., District Revenue Officer, has been put to test before this Court in the present batch of writ petitions.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions, as could be culled out from the present petitions, are as under :-

The Government, in exercise of the powers under the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (for short ‘the Act’), had taken over the lands covered by T.D. No.543 on 15.2.1965 and as a result of the taking over, the inam tenure stood extinguished and the lands stood converted into ryotwari. Since no claim was made with regard to the said lands on the basis of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules, 1965, suo motu enquiry was initiated by the Settlement Officer pursuant to which notices were duly served on the interested parties and conduct of the enquiry led to the Settlement Officer granting patta to one Ramanuja Iyer and Doraisamy Iyer jointly on the condition that the said persons and their successors, in order to hold the land permanently, should render puja service to Sri Athinarayanaswamy Temple continuously. The said settlement patta was granted by the Settlement Officer vide proceedings in S.R. No.307 dated 1.6.1968.

3. Based on the said patta granted to the aforesaid individuals, the subject lands were alienated by the legal heirs of the said original pattadars, viz., Ramanuja Iyer and Duraisamy Iyer for the purpose of off-setting their personal requirement in favour of the petitioners herein. When the pattas were in the name of the subsequent purchasers, viz., the petitioners herein, out of blue, the 2nd respondent had taken action suo motu and issued notice calling upon the petitioners to appear for enquiry and after recording the statements of the respective petitioners, the impugned order cancelling the patta has been passed and reverting the patta in the name of Adhinarayanaswamy Temple and relevant entries in the revenue records were also changed without the copy being served on the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, which is impugned herein, the present petitions have been filed for quashment and for consequential direction to grant patta in favour of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the pattas have been cancelled on the premise that the families of Duraisamy Iyer and Ramanuja Iyer, who were granted ryotwari patta, have alienated the property in violation of the conditions of the patta dated 1.6.1968.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel that though the lands in question are admittedly ‘Devadayam’, the archakas aforesaid were granted ryotwari patta and the only condition imposed is that they and their legal heirs shall continue to render puja servie to the temple and deities. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that it is not disputed by the respondents that the legal heirs of the original pattadars are still doing puja in the temple even today and that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is not providing any fund for