IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the H.R. & C.E. Act prevails over Act 30 of 1963 for temple properties, and the nullity of alienation of temple property beyond 5 years under Section 41.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 06.06.2022 in WP No.4693 of 2022.)

1. These writ appeal has been filed to set aside the Order dated dated 06.06.2022 in WP No.4693 of 2022.

2. The Writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri dated 11.01.2022, to conduct re-survey and issue Patta in the name of Arulmigu Athinarayanaswamy Temple, at Jakkasamudram Village, Dharmapuri District.

3. The application submitted by the Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 for UDR Patta had been entertained by the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri. The District Revenue Officer has conducted an enquiry and granted Patta in the name of the subject temple. The said order came to be challenged in the writ proceedings. Since the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition, the present writ appeal came to be filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr.C.Umashankar would submit that as per the order of the Settlement Officer dated 01.06.1968, the great grand father of the petitioner Thiru.Ramanuja Iyer was performing Puja and Patta was granted under Section 8(3)(ii) r/w Section 20 (1) (2) and (3) of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.

5. The order passed by the Settlement Officer relied upon by the appellant would reveal that the appellant, his father and grand father were in continuous possession of the subject property and they have rendered Puja services to the temple namely, Athinarayanaswamy Temple and were willing to continue the performance of Puja services, to hold the suit land permanently. Relying on the said statement, the Settlement Officer has passed the order, in exercise of the powers delegated in G.O.No.401/Revenue Dated 18.08.1965. Accordingly, the subject land was granted in the name of Thiru.Ramanuja Iyer and Thiru.Duraisamy Iyer and consequently, Ryotwari Patta was granted under Act 30 of 1963.

6. Mr.C.Umashankar, would further submit that they are performing puja and in occupation of the subject property and subsequently sold the property in favour of third parties, in order to meet out their personal and family expenditures and to lead their livelihood.

7. Sale of temple property has not been disputed between the parties. Learned Single Judge though considered Section 21 of the Act 30 of 1963, and further and considered the long possession of the property by the family members of the petitioner and performing pujas continuously, failed to appreciate the same and dismissed the writ petitions.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant would rely on Section 21 of T.N.Act 30 of 1963 and stated that the appellant is continuously performing the puja services to Athinarayanasamy Temple. Therefore, the order of the Settlement Officer assisted by their possession would be sufficient to grant the relief. The District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for grant of UDR Patta. Thus, the impugned order which was under challenge in the writ proceeding is to be set aside.

9. Learned Government Advocate Mr.K.Karthikeyan appearing on behalf of the H.R. & C.E. Department would oppose by stating that right to alienate the temple property has not been conferred on the petitioner's or their ancestors in order dated 01.06.1968 by the Settlement Officer. Therefore, the alienation of property made by the petitioner is null and void in view of Section 41 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. When the entire transaction between the petitioner and third parties found to be null and void and the UDR Patta granted in the name of the temple is in consonance with the provisions of the Act, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions.

10. Considering the arguments as advanced between the appellant and the respondents to the lis on hand, Act 30 of 1963, as far as the f