BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P(MD)No.25299 of 2024 Selvalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

2.Arulmigu Sankaranarayanasamy Temple, Rep. by its Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to accept the document for registration to be submitted by the petitioner with regard to Plot No.197 in Survey No.617 corresponding to new Survey No. 617/1A1A situated at NGO Colony Ward No.5, measuring 3400 sq.ft., situated at Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District and register the same within a time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

ORDER

According to the petitioner, the property in Plot No.197 in Survey No.617 corresponding to new Survey No.617/1A1A situated at NGO Colony Ward No.5, measuring 3400 sq.ft., situated at Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District belonged to the petitioner. He executed a lease deed dated 05.02.2020 in favour of M/s.Indus Towers Ltd., Chennai. Thereafter, he decided to execute a sale deed in favour of third party, after obtaining no objection from the said Company and presented a draft deed for registration. However, the 1^st respondent refused to accept the same citing the objections given by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner has also made representation dated 03.10.2024 to the 1^st respondent, requesting to register the document. Since the same has not been considered so far, 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