The Archakas, having been issued Ryotwari Patta, are not entitled to alienate the properties as they continue to render Bhattar service to the temple. The Collector is empowered under Section 41 of the HR & CE Act to resume the land on application from the temple.

Headnote:
Inam - Archaka Service - The Archakas, having been issued Ryotwari Patta, are not entitled to alienate the properties as they continue to render Bhattar service to the temple. The Collector is empowered under Section 41 of the HR & CE Act to resume the land on application from the temple.
Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over the ownership and alienation of inam lands granted for the performance of archanai service in a temple. The Archakas claimed entitlement to both warams, while the temple contended that the inam was a Devadhayam, attached to the office of the Archakas.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the inam was for the performance of archaka service and would go with the office of the Archaka. The Archakas were not entitled to alienate the lands, and the temple was entitled to pray for resumption under Section 41 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the Archakas, having been issued Ryotwari Patta, are entitled to alienate the properties as they continue to render Bhattar service to the temple? Whether the Collector is empowered under Section 41 of the HR & CE Act to resume the land on application from the temple?
Ratio Decidendi: The Archakas, having been issued Ryotwari Patta, are not entitled to alienate the properties as they continue to render Bhattar service to the temple. The Collector is empowered under Section 41 of the HR & CE Act to resume the land on application from the temple.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeals stand dismissed, and the direction given to the Collector to resume the land is upheld. No costs are awarded.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment made by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)

A. The Petitions:

These Writ Appeals arise out of the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2023 in W.P.No.7775 of 2003 and as such are taken up together and disposed of by this Common Order.

2. In the Writ Petition, the Executive Officer, Arulmighu Kallazhagar Devasthanam, Azhagarkoil, Madurai (hereinafter 'the temple'), is the writ petitioner. The order of the District Collector, Madurai dated 16.10.2022 bearing reference in R.O.C.J2/91317/2001 was challenged in the Writ Petition. By the said impugned order, the District Collector set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai(hereinafter 'the RDO'), dated 15.06.2001, holding that the very entertainment of the petition for resumption of property mentioned therein is without jurisdiction.

2.1. The RDO had passed an order dated 15.06.2001 in the application filed by the Executive Officer of the temple, under Section 21 (7) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), read with Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Rules 1965 and Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1959 (Act

22 of 1959).

2.2. In the said application, before the RDO, it is the claim of the temple that the predecessors of the appellants herein through whom the appellants are claiming title, were the Archakas providing Bhattar service to the temple. The temple is the ultimate owner of the property and the said Archakas were only granted a service inam i.e., the right to enjoy the property so long as they render service to the temple. It is a right attached to the Office and not an individual right. The moment they violated the condition and alienated the property the temple is entitled to resume the property under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1959 Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the HR&CE Act'),and accordingly the application was made.

B. The Factual Background:

3. The factual matrix, on which this case arises is as follows:-

The subject matter property are nanja lands in Survey No.26, Melamadai Village, Madurai Taluk, ad-measuring 1 acre and 83 cents. Admittedly, the said Melamadai Village is an inam village. After the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 ( hereinafter ‘the Act 30 of 1963’) came into force, as per Section 3 of the said Act, the land would stand vested with the Government, unless Ryotwari patta is granted as per Section 8 of the Act. There was no initial claim before the Settlement Officer, in respect of the land in question. The Settlement Officer therefore, took up suo-motu enquiry under Section 11 of the Act 30 of 1963.

3.1 During the enquiry, one Pappammal, Venkataraman and Muthalagu Konar claimed that they are entitled to kudiwaram rights in respect of the said lands. It is claimed that Mr.Venkataraman's father and his paternal uncle had purchased an extent of 91 cents of the land in Survey No.26 in a Court auction. The remaining extent of 93 cents was purchased by Muthalagu Konar from the original owner of the kudiwaram under a sale deed dated 14.08.1947. It is their contention that the Devasthanam as well as the Archakas were only the holders of melwaram alone, therefore, they had claimed Ryotwari Patta. The Settlement Officer, viz., the Settlement Tahsildar No.I, M.I. (Madurai) in S.R.No.1146/MI Act/MDU/66 dated 18.09.1971 had granted Ryotwari patta in favour of the said Pappammal and two others. Aggrieved by the same, S.R.Lakshmana Bhattar and Alangara Bhattar @ Paramasamy Bhattar filed an appeal before the Inam Abolition Tribunal / the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in C.M.A.No.373 of 1972. In the said appeal, the temple was arrayed as 4th respondent. After detailed enquiry, by a Judgment dated 31.08.1976, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Tribunal framed the following two questions:-

“5. The following main points arise for co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document