Temple property cannot be alienated without adherence to the HR & CE Act, rendering unauthorized sales void.

ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.A/185/2015 dated 21.03.2017.

2.By the impugned order, the patta entry has been mutated in favour of the third respondent temple. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the subject land from the sixth respondent by virtue of a sale deed dated 11.11.2013.

3.It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the strength of the statement of the fifth respondent, who was the power of attorney holder of the legal heirs of the deceased Chinnan, who sold the property to favour of the sixth respondent (the vendor of the petitioner). It is submitted that since the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, it is liable to be quashed.

4.The learned counsel for the third respondent temple on the other hand would submit that the subject land is an Inam land. He has drawn attention to the proceeding of the Settlement Tahsildar – II, Madurai, dated 25.09.1968, which reads as under:-

“ORDER This is an enquiry under Section of Madras Minor Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963 in respect of the claim for ryotwari patta for the inam lands S.No.122/9, confirmed in TD.No.311 in the village of 87, Urseri, Nilakottai Taluk. The grant was made for the support of the pagoda of Shivinayager situated in Urseri village. The above inam Land was notified and taken over by Government on 15.02.65 abolishing the Minor Inam character and converting into ryotwari with effect from the coming into effect of the Act 30 of 1963 . The powers of the Assistant Settlement Officer under section 11 read with section 8 or 9 of the Act, are exercised by me on delegation as per Notification No.II-I, 3234/66, published in the Fort St.George, Gazette dated 18.7.66.

2.As nobody applied for patta, suo motto enquiry is taken up as per rule 9(3) of the rules framed under the Act. Notices of enquiry were got served on the occupants of the inam lands and also got duly published in the village as per rules. The occupants of the lands, the Karnam appeared and they were heard.

3.My enquiry shows the following: The temple is in existence at S.No 122/16 of Mirsari village. No one has been appointed as its trustee. Viswalingan Pillai, S/o Nagu Pilai is the descendant of the original service doer. The continuous of render service regularly and looks to the upkeep of the temple. He is in possession of the land by hereditary right.

4.From the evident on record, I am satisfied that this is an Iruvaram grant made for the support of the temple and the deity Sri Vinayagar is entitled to patta under section 8(2)(ii) of the Act for S.No.122/9 through the poosari of the temple. Ryotwari patta will issue accordingly under section 11 (2) of the Act.”

5.The learned counsel for the third respondent would further submit that the first sale deed dated 29.05.1961 also states that the land was an Inam land. He refers to the details of the property in the first sale deed by the service provider, namely, Viswalingam in favour of Chinnan, which reads as under:-

“fpiua nrhj;J tpguk;:

kJiu b> myq;fhey;Y}u; b epyf;Nfhl;il jhYfh> [hup ma;A+u; fpuhkk;> ,dhk; ru;Nt 58 epu; Vf;fu;/nrz;L 4 kl;Lk; ,jw;Fkhy; : R.Kj;Jr;rhkp gps;is> K.uhkgps;is> ng.K.Kj;joF gps;is ,tu;fs; GQ;irf;Fk; (tlf;F)> FUehjgps;is kfd; khahz;b gps;is tifawh GQ;irf;Fk; njg;gf;Fsj;Jf;Fk; (fpof;F)> ehfgg; ps;is tifawh GQ;irf;Fk; (njw;F) cUkz fTz;lu; Kj;Jr;rhkp gps;is tifawh GQ;irf;Fk; (Nkw;F) ,jw;Fs;gl;lJ. Nkw;gb nrhj;J ma;A+u;

fpuhkk; gQ;rhaj;J NghuL; vy;iyf;Fs;gl;lJ.”

6.That apart, it is submitted that the subsequent sale by the fifth respondent in favour of the sixth respondent vide a sale deed dated 20.09.2010 on the strength of Power of Attorney dated 16.09.2010 by the legal heirs of Chinnan does not mention about the nature of the property that it is an Inam property. It is therefore submitted that the subsequent sale by the sixth respondent i