Mere objections from a third party cannot deny property registration; legal rights pertaining to service must be established for any transactions to be invalidated.

ORDER :

1. According to the petitioner, he purchased the land comprised in old survey No.572, later sub-divided into 572/5C, totally measuring to an extent of 868 sq.ft vide a registered sale deed dated 14.08.2020. Thereafter on 13.12.2024, the petitioner decided to sell the subject property in favour of the third party and to execute a sale deed and presented the same before the first for registration. However, the 1^st respondent refused to accept the same citing the objection dated 09.02.2021 given by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner requested the first respondent to register the document. Since, the same was not considered by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that patta proceedings had been initiated under Act 30 of 1963 and vide order dated 30.04.1972, ryotwari patta had been issued in favour of the predecessors of the petitioner in respect of the properties in question and that order has been reached finality, which has not been challenged. Ever since the date of patta, the predecessor in title enjoyed the properties in question and several transaction had also taken place. Now, by giving mere objection before the registering authority, the Temple cannot prevent the transaction.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the subject properties are service inams and patta has been granted only under Section 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) r/w Section 21 of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Act 30 of 1963) and if the service is not rendered by the pattadharars, they do not have any right either to enjoy the lands or to alienate the same and the Temple can resume the lands at any time as per Section 41 of Tamil Nadu HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT , 1959 (hereinafter, referred to as HR & CE Act'). That apart, Section 38 of Act 30 of 1963 also makes such transaction as void. Hence, he opposed this Writ Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is not disputed by both sides that patta had been originally granted under Section 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) r/w Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963. That order has been reached finality, which has not been challenged.

6. It is relevant to extract Sections 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) of Act 30 of 1963, which read as follows:-

“8. Grant of ryotwari Pattas:-

(2)(ii) In the case of any other land, the institution or the individual rendering service shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land.

(5) In the case of a minor inam held immediately before the appointed day by an individual on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution, the grant of ryotwari patta under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the provisions of section 21.”

7. The above provisions make it clear that any patta granted under Section 8 of Act 30 of 1963 shall be subject to the provision of Section 21.

8. Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963 reads as follows:-

“21. Service inams.

(1) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of any minor inam which was held immediately before the appointed day by an individual (hereinafter referred to in this section as the service-holder) on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution.

(2) The service-holder shall, subject to the provisions of sub-se