1. Petitioners argued lack of jurisdiction; respondents contended alienation of service inam lands is invalid and DRO can correct UDR errors. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
Jegatheesan K – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
W.P.(MD) Nos.10999, 11001 to 11008, 11148 to 11153, 10715 and 14046 of 2023|W.M.P.(MD)Nos.9618 to 9622, 9624, 9626 to 9633, 9636, 9637,9640, 9642, 9645, 9646, 9648, 9652, 9653, 9656, 9661, 9663, 9665,9733, 9734, 9736, 9737, 9738, 9742, 9440 and 11879 of 2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Ramsundarvijayraj
For the Respondents: A. Baskaran, S. Manohar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Ramsundarvijayraj
For the Respondents: A. Baskaran, S. Manohar
Service inam lands are inalienable; any alienation by service holders or their heirs to third parties is void and conveys no title. Revenue authorities may correct UDR entries based on such invalid transfers without overriding original settlement orders.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Sections 8(2)(ii), 8(5) and 21 - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 41(2)(a)(iii) - Service inam lands - Grant of ryotwari patta subject to rendering service - Right to occupy land permanently is contingent upon the continued performance of service - Service inam lands are inalienable in nature - Any alienation of such lands by service holders or their heirs to third parties is invalid and does not convey any title - The religious institution possesses a statutory right to resume such lands upon failure of service. (Paras 6-15)
(B) Revenue Law - UDR scheme - Jurisdiction of District Revenue Officer - Correction of erroneous entries - The District Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to correct errors that crept into the UDR updation, particularly when entries were based on invalid alienations, provided the original order passed by the Settlement Officer under the Minor Inams Act is not altered. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged orders passed by the District Revenue Officer which cancelled patta issued in their names under the UDR scheme and restored the same to a religious institution. The subject properties were classified as service inam lands, where ryotwari patta had been granted to original holders provided they continued to render specific services. The legal heirs of these service holders alienated the property to third parties, who developed the land into plots and sold them to the petitioners.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subject properties were indeed service inam lands and that the alienations by the heirs of the original patta holders were invalid as the lands were inalienable. Consequently, the purchasers acquired no valid title. The court further found that the District Revenue Officer acted within his jurisdiction by correcting a UDR entry that had been erroneously updated based on these invalid sales, without disturbing the original settlement proceedings.
Issues: Whether the District Revenue Officer has the jurisdiction to cancel UDR patta entries based on the invalid alienation of service inam lands and whether such alienation confers any legal title upon the subsequent purchasers.
Ratio Decidendi: A service holder is entitled to occupy land permanently only as long as the service is rendered; failure to render service entitles the institution to resume the land. Because service inam lands are inalienable, any transfer to a third party is void. The District Revenue Officer may correct UDR records to reflect this legal status as a correction of an entry error rather than an amendment of a settlement order.
Result: Impugned orders confirmed with a modification directing the revenue records to reflect the property as service land of the institution along with the names of individual inam patta holders until their rights are formally terminated.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- certiorarified mandamus
-
revenue records
-
udr scheme
- correction of entries (Para 16)
-
udr scheme
-
writ jurisdiction
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Service inam lands are inalienable; alienation by service holders confers no title; DRO has jurisdiction to correct UDR errors. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Alienation of service inam lands by holders or heirs is invalid and does not confer title on purchasers. (Para 15 )
4. Writ petitions disposed of confirming DRO orders with modification to reflect names of patta holders in revenue records. (Para 18 )
5. Is alienation of service inam lands by the holder or their heirs valid?
No, alienation of service inam lands is invalid and does not confer any title on the purchaser. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Does the District Revenue Officer have jurisdiction to correct UDR entries made based on invalid alienations?
Yes, the District Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to correct errors that crept in during UDR updation based on such invalid alienations. (Para 16 )
7. What is the correct revenue entry for service inam lands after cancellation of invalid UDR patta?
The entry must reflect the names of the individual inam patta holders along with the description of the land as service inam land. (Para 17 )
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.44/2018/J5, dated 31.03.2023 and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to mutate the patta in favour of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4
Mr.S.Manohar for R5
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District allowing the application filed by the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kalamega Perumal Temple, seeking cancellation of patta issued in the name of the petitioners under UDR scheme and restoration of patta in the name of Arulmigu Kalamega Perumal Temple.
2. According to the petitioners, the subject properties with total extent of 1 acre 17 cents situated in S.No.27/6, Thirumohoor Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District has been developed in the name of P.K.Residency and the petitioners purchased the plots developed in the said land and constructed houses and have been residing thereon. It is stated by the petitioners that ryotwari patta has been issued in favour of vendors of petitioners under the “Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 [Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963]” (hereinafter referred to as “Act 30 of 1963”) and the impugned order has been passed without noticing the right available to the petitioners' vendors. It is stated by the petitioners that the District Revenue Officer, Madurai District has no jurisdiction to cancel the patta issued by the Settlement Officer under the provisions of Act 30 of 1963 and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the question of jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment in Sennnimalai Gounder (Died) and others Vs Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore and others reported in (2019) 5 MLJ 279.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Arulmigu Kalamega Perumal Temple would submit that the properties in question were Inam lands and the same were granted to the benefits of the temple for rendering Meikaval service in the temple. It is stated that originally six persons viz., Perumal, Karuppaiah, Raman, Murugan, Lakshmanan and Mookayee were granted settlement patta under Section 8(2)(ii) r/w Section 8(5) r/w Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for the temple that the service holders are entitled to patta subject to the condition that they must continue to do service and they have no right to alienate the property. It is his submission that in the case on hand, the service holders, who were granted patta under the Act 30 of 1963, violating the statutory condition, sold the properties to the third parties and the properties were developed and sold to the petitioners and therefore, the same is invalid. It is also stated that when conditional patta was granted under the Act 30 of 1963, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to grant patta in the names of the predecessors of the petitioners under UDR scheme. Any erroneous entry in UDR scheme can be corrected by the District Revenue Officer. Therefore, the impugned orders are not affected by error of jurisdiction.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that service inam lands are inalienable in nature and hence, alienation of the same by the service holders will not convey any title. He further submitted that any alienation of temple land is hit by Section 34 of “the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959” (hereinafter referred to as 'HR & CE Act'). The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the alienations of the subject properties by the service ho
