SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 98527

MADRAS HIGH COURT
L.VARALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WA 1294 2021



Dual ownership is permissible by a reading of Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963).

Headnote:

LAND TENURE - MINOR INAMS - VESTING OF BUILDINGS - DUAL OWNERSHIP - REVISION OF RENT - TAMIL NADU MINOR INAMS (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1963 - SECTION 13

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the notice-cum-order fixing increased rent in respect of the premises at Door No.40, South Kasar Garden Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai. In another writ petition, a Writ of Declaration is prayed to declare that the respondents have no power and jurisdiction to treat the schedule mentioned land as temple land by virtue of order of Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, dated 31.03.1971 and inver of Section 43 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1960.

Finding of the Court:

The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer passed under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) has become final. Though the patta is granted in recognition of existing right, unless the same is issued under Section 8 or under Section 13 of the Act, the land or building stood vested in the Government. By the said order, joint patta has been granted. Though the pleading of the petitioner in respect of the exclusive ownership may not be correct, still when joint patta is issued, the ownership of the appellant is recognised. When the order also mentioned that rents are not revisable, the temple is also bound by the same and as such, the Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed.

Issues: 1. Whether the rights of parties are governed by the order of the Settlement Tahsildar passed under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) as the same has become final?2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim that no rent is payable / reivisable in view of the same?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer passed under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963) has become final. Though the patta is granted in recognition of existing right, unless the same is issued under Section 8 or under Section 13 of the Act, the land or building stood vested in the Government. By the said order, joint patta has been granted. Though the pleading of the petitioner in respect of the exclusive ownership may not be correct, still when joint patta is issued, the ownership of the appellant is recognised. When the order also mentioned that rents are not revisable, the temple is also bound by the same and as such, the Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed.2. The temple is entitled to revise the rent as per the Government Orders in force.

Final Decision: The W.A.Nos. 1294 and 1302 of 2021 shall stand dismissed. No costs.

W.A.Nos.1294 and 1302 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment reserved on : 21.11.2023

Judgment pronounced on : 06.12.2023

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA ,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.A.Nos.1294 and 1302 of 2021

L.Varalakshmi

.. Appellant

(in both W.As)

Versus

1. The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious & Charitable

Endowments,

Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai - 600 034.

2. The Executive Officer,

Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Thirukoil,

Aminjikarai, Chennai - 600 029.

3. The Collector of Chennai District,

Collector's Office,

Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

4. The Tahsildar,

Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk,

Chetput, Chennai - 600 031.

.. Respondents

(in both W.As)

1/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.Nos.1294 and 1302 of 2021

Prayer in W.A.No.1294 of 2021 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of

Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 02.01.2020 in W.P.No.23541 of

2008.

Prayer in W.A.No.1302 of 2021 : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of

Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 02.01.2020 in W.P.No.23542 of

2008.

For Appellant

: Mr.Om Prakash, Senior Counsel

(in both W.As)

for Mr.V.Venkatesan

For Respondents

: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan,

(in both W.As)

Special Government Pleader (HR & CE),

for R1

: Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel

for Mr.S.D.Ramalingam, for R2

: Mr.P.Muthukumar,

State Government Pleader for RR-3 and 4

COMMON JUDGMENT

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

These Writ Appeals arise out of the common order of the learned

Single Judge, dated 17.12.2019 dismissing W.P.Nos.23541 and 23542 of

2008. In W.P.No.23541 of 2008, the appellant challenged the notice-cum-

order, dated 15.07.2008 fixing increased rent in respect of the premises at

2/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.Nos.1294 and 1302 of 2021

Door No.40, South Kasar Garden Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai. In

W.P.No.23542 of 2008, a Writ of Declaration is prayed to declare that the

respondents have no power and jurisdiction to treat the schedule mentioned

land as temple land by virtue of order of Settlement Tahsildar,

Chengalpattu, dated 31.03.1971 and inver of Section 43 of Tamil Nadu Act

30 of 1960.

2. The case of the appellant / writ petitioner is that her father

T.S.Duraisami Naidu, was in occupation of the land of an extent of 1

Ground and 1820 Sq.ft., comprised in S.No.70/2 part in Aminjikarai village

having put up a superstructure 80 years before. The land was assessed to

Urban Land Tax by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax. The

name of the temple is mentioned as Ekamberashwarar Devasthanam and

present owner as T.S.Duraisami Naidu.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams

Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1963 (Act 30 of 1963)

(hereinafter ‘the Act’), under which, the Settlement Tahsildar had passed an

order, dated 31.03.1971, granting joint ground rent patta to the petitioner’s

3/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.Nos.1294 and 1302 of 2021

father. The same had become final. Thus, the ownership of the property

vested with the petitioner. However, the petitioner’s father and others in the

locality continued to pay an amount to the temple in the name of rent.

Taking advantage of the same, by the impugned order, rent is sought to be

revised, that too retrospectively. The authorities have no jurisdiction in

respect of the same and hence the petitions.

4. The Writ Petition is resisted by the respondents. It is the stand of

the temple that the land in question was minor inam land. The temple is the

holder of both warams in respect of the land. The temple has leased out the

land to the petitioner’s father and others, who put up superstructure and

were living in the land as tenants. The temple is granted ryotwari patta

under Section 8 of the Act. Only in respect of building, joint ground r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top