The Act provides for dual ownership under Section 13, where the owner of the building may be different from the owner of the site, allowing the temple to revise the rent for the land on which the building is situated.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: in W.A.No.1294 of 2021 Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 02.01.2020 in W.P.No.23541 of 2008. W.A.No.1302 of 2021 Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 02.01.2020 in W.P.No.23542 of 2008.)

Common Judgment

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

1. These Writ Appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17.12.2019 dismissing W.P.Nos.23541 and 23542 of 2008. In W.P.No.23541 of 2008, the appellant challenged the notice-cumorder, dated 15.07.2008 fixing increased rent in respect of the premises at Door No.40, South Kasar Garden Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai. In W.P.No.23542 of 2008, a Writ of Declaration is prayed to declare that the respondents have no power and jurisdiction to treat the schedule mentioned land as temple land by virtue of order of Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, dated 31.03.1971 and inver of Section 43 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1960.

2. The case of the appellant / writ petitioner is that her father T.S.Duraisami Naidu, was in occupation of the land of an extent of 1 Ground and 1820 Sq.ft., comprised in S.No.70/2 part in Aminjikarai village having put up a superstructure 80 years before. The land was assessed to Urban Land Tax by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax. The name of the temple is mentioned as Ekamberashwarar Devasthanam and present owner as T.S.Duraisami Naidu.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) (hereinafter ‘the Act’), under which, the Settlement Tahsildar had passed an order, dated 31.03.1971, granting joint ground rent patta to the petitioner’s father. The same had become final. Thus, the ownership of the property vested with the petitioner. However, the petitioner’s father and others in the locality continued to pay an amount to the temple in the name of rent. Taking advantage of the same, by the impugned order, rent is sought to be revised, that too retrospectively. The authorities have no jurisdiction in respect of the same and hence the petitions.

4. The Writ Petition is resisted by the respondents. It is the stand of the temple that the land in question was minor inam land. The temple is the holder of both warams in respect of the land. The temple has leased out the land to the petitioner’s father and others, who put up superstructure and were living in the land as tenants. The temple is granted ryotwari patta under Section 8 of the Act. Only in respect of building, joint ground rent patta is given. The temple is therefore entitled to revise the rent for the land on which the building is situate. Since the tenant has defaulted, already a suit for recovery of possession is filed in O.S.No. 7349 of 2008 and the same is pending. The very same defence is raised in the said suit.

5. The learned Single Judge considered the case of the parties and by the order under appeal held that all along the petitioner was paying rent and accepted the ownership of the temple. Upon consideration of Section 13 of the Act, it can only be held that building alone vested with the petitioner. The patta is not a document of title and the joint patta granted by the Settlement Officer will not vest title in the petitioner. The original Inamdar will be entitled to possession as well as rent from the tenant. As against fixation of fair rent, appeal remedy is available.

6. We have heard Mr.Om Prakash, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) for the first respondent, Mr.A.K.Sriram, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Second respondent temple, Mr.P.Muthukumar, the learned State Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

7. Mr.Om Prakash, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the rights of parties are governed by the order of the Settlement Tahsildar passed under the Act