REPORTABLE                                                        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3537 OF 2002

Arulmighu Lakshmi Narayanaswamy  Temple, Rep. by its Chairman, Board of Trustees      .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Nallammal (Dead) thr. LRs. & Ors.    .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order  

dated 09.10.2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at  

Madras in S.T.A. No. 12 of 1996 whereby the Division Bench  

of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents  

herein and set aside the judgment and order dated 15.07.1996  

passed by the  Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal  (Subordinate  

Judge),  Salem  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Tribunal”)  in  

M.I.A. No. 1 of 1993 in favour of the appellant-Temple herein.

1

2) Brief facts:

(a) According  to  the  appellant-Temple,  in  the  year  1760,  

Krishna Raja Udayar, the Rajah of Mysore, granted the village  

of  Jagadapady  or  Nattapatti  together  with  12  hamlets,  to  

certain  Brahmins.   Komarapalayam  was  one  of  the  12  

hamlets.  The grant, however, was not by way of gift of either  

the land or any portion of the assessment thereon.  A number  

of Brahmins subscribed and collected a sum of Rs.50,000/-  

“Rajagopala  Pagodas”.   Four  of  them,  who  represented  the  

others as well, paid the amount into the treasury and obtained  

a grant of Jagadapady and 12 hamlets rent free from the ruler.  

When Tippu Sultan came to power, he resumed six of the 12  

hamlets,  allowing the successors  of  the  original  grantees to  

remain in possession of the rest without any obligation to pay  

any rent on that portion of the village.  On the assumption of  

sovereignty by the British, Captain Macleod confirmed the title  

on the successors of  the grantees in regard to the lands in  

their possession. During the enquiry by the Inam Commission,  

it  was  found  that  the  inam  was  enjoyed  in  110  vritties,  

however, only persons holding 90 vritties appeared and filed  

2

statements and there was no claim for about 20 vritties.   The  

Inam  Commissioner  confirmed  the  inam  on  26.01.1863  

subject to an assessment of Rs. 566-11-3 in addition to the  

quit rent of Rs. 299-12-0 and Title Deed No. 1164 was issued  

in the name of the appellant-Temple.   

(b)   When  the  Madras  Inam  Estates  (Abolition  and  

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act No. 26 of 1963) was  

enacted,  the aggrieved parties  challenged the  validity  of  the  

Notification issued by the State Government by filing a writ  

petition  before  the  High  Court  on  the  ground  that  

Komarapalayam  hamlet  is  not  an  inam  and,  therefore  the  

Notification  has  no  application  to  that  hamlet.   They  also  

challenged the validity of the aforesaid Act.  The High Court,  

by order dated 24.06.1966, upheld the validity of the Act.  On  

appeal, this Court, by judgment dated 17.08.1973, confirmed  

the decision of the High Court in K.M. Sengoda Goundar &  

Ors. vs. State of Madras & Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 662.   

(c) However,  suo  motu proceedings  were  taken  by  the  

Assistant  Settlement  Officer,  Salem  under  the  Tamil  Nadu  

Minor  Inams  (Abolition  and  Conversion  into  Ryotwari)  Act,  

3

1963 (Act No. 30 of 1963) (in short “Act No. 30 of 1963”), on  

the  ground  that  the  lands  in  question  situated  in  

Komarapalayam Agraharam hamlet are minor inam lands and,  

therefore,  they  are  liable  to  be  resumed and converted into  

Ryotwari lands after the commencement of Act No. 30 of 1963.  

The Assistant Settlement Officer, by order dated 20.04.1981,  

granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of the appellant-Temple for  

Survey Nos. 2/1, 2/2, 3/1 and 3/3 and classified Survey No.  

3/2 as Cart track Poramboke.    

(d) Against the said classification, the appellant-Temple filed  

M.I.A.  No.  27  of  1981  before  the  Tribunal  and  the  other  

claimants – respondents herein filed M.I.A. Nos. 29-31 and 35  

of 1981.  By order dated 21.10.1982, the Tribunal allowed all  

the  appeals  and  remanded  the  matter  to  the  Assistant  

Settlement Officer for fresh disposal.  

(e) Against  the  said  order  of  the  Tribunal,  the  appellant-

Temple filed S.T.A. Nos. 34-37 of 1983 before the High Court.  

The High Court, vide order dated 17.08.1988, dismissed the  

appeals.  In the meanwhile, portion of Survey Nos. 3/1 and  

3/3 was acquired by the State Government under the Land  

4

Acquisition  Act  for  Municipal  Shandy  and  compensation  

amount was deposited in the Court by the Land Acquisition  

Officer  by  his  award  being  L.A.  No.  2  of  1983  dated  

01.07.1983.   

(f) Remand  Enquiry  was  taken  up  by  the  Assistant  

Settlement Officer, Dharapuram in S.R. No.4/90 and by order  

dated   16.10.1992,  the  patta  was  granted  in  favour  of  the  

Temple in respect of all the lands except Survey No. 3/1A in  

favour of the respondents.   The other lands in Survey Nos.  

3/1B and 3/3 were registered in the name of the Municipality.  

(g) Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Settlement  

Officer granting patta in respect of Survey No. 3/1A in favour  

of the respondents, the appellant-Temple preferred an appeal  

before the Tribunal in M.I.A. No.1 of 1993.  The Tribunal, by  

order dated 15.07.1996, allowed the appeal and set aside the  

order  passed  by  the  Assistant  Settlement  Officer,  

Dharapuram.  

(h)  Against the said order of the Tribunal, respondent Nos.  

1-4 preferred an appeal being S.T.A. No. 12 of 1996 before the  

High Court of Madras.  The Division Bench of the High Court,  

5

by impugned judgment dated 09.10.2000, allowed the appeal  

and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remanded  

the matter to the Tribunal to decide the case on merits.   

(i) Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court,  the  

appellant-Temple has preferred this appeal by way of special  

leave petition before this Court.  

3) Heard, Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for  

the  appellant-Temple  and Mr.  K.  Ramamoorthy  and Mr.  R.  

Sundaravardhan, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

Submissions:

4) Mr.  Venkataramani,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant-Temple,  after  taking  us  through  the  order  of  the  

original  authority-Assistant  Settlement  Officer,  the  Tribunal  

and the impugned order of the High Court submitted that the  

High Court has committed a grave error in not following the  

judgment  of  this  Court  in  K.M. Sengoda Goundar (supra)  

wherein, this Court, while dealing with the same Act, i.e., Act  

No.  30  of  1963  has  categorically  held  that  the  entire  

Komarapalayam village  in  which  properties  in  question  are  

situated is not an Inam village as the original grant was made  

6

in consideration of  payment of  money by the grantees and,  

therefore, the grant was not an Inam grant.  He also submitted  

that the High Court is not correct in law in reversing the order  

of  the  Tribunal  holding that  the  Act  No.  30 of  1963 is  not  

applicable to the properties in question.  On the other hand,  

Mr.  K.  Ramamoorthy  and  Mr.  R.  Sundaravardhan,  learned  

senior  counsel  for  the  respondents  submitted  that  the  

Tribunal, by order dated 15.07.1996 erroneously held that the  

lands are outside the purview of the provisions of Act 30 of  

1963 and, therefore, lands cannot be subjected to the grant of  

Ryotwari Patta under the provisions of the said Act.  On this  

sole ground, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer was  

set aside by the Tribunal.   They further submitted that the  

decisions in  K.M. Sengoda Goundar (supra) and  Sellappa  

Goundan & Ors. vs. Bhaskaran & Ors., (1960) 2 MLJ 363,  

relied on by the appellant,  are related only to the village of  

Komarapalayam Agraharam and not to the minor Inam grants  

existing in the said village.  They further highlighted that these  

two decisions have nothing to do with the minor inam grants  

that  were  in  existence  in  Komarapalayam  Agraharam  and  

7

notified under the Act No. 30 of 1963.  They also submitted  

that the impugned order of the High Court is in order and the  

matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal to decide the issue  

on merits as directed by the High Court.   

5) We have carefully considered the rival submissions and  

perused the relevant materials.

6) Though Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel has  

highlighted certain provisions from the Madras Estates Land  

Act,  1908  and  the  Tamil  Nadu  Estates  (Abolition  and  

Conversion into Ryotwari)  Act,  1948, for the disposal  of the  

present appeal, we are concerned only with the Tamil Nadu  

Act No. 30 of 1963.  The Act was enacted to provide for the  

acquisition of the rights of Inamdars in minor Inams in the  

State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  the  introduction  of  Ryotwari  

settlement in such Inams.  Relevant provisions of the said Act  

as mentioned in Section 2 are as under:-

“(5) “inam” means— (i) a grant of the melvaram in any inam land; or (ii) a grant of both the melvaram and the kudiwaram in  any inam land which grant has been made, confirmed  or recognized by the Government.

8

(6) “inamdar” in respect of any inam means the person  who held  the inam immediately before the appointed  day;

(7) “inam land” means any land comprised in a minor inam;”

7) The expression  “Malevarm” referred to  in  Section 2(5)  

means the share of the produce due to the landlord and the  

expression “Kudiwaram” means the cultivator’s share of the  

produce. Chapter III of the Act deals with “Grant of Ryotwari  

Pattas”.   Section 8 deals with grant of  Ryotwari  Pattas.   In  

terms  of  Section  8,  any  person  claiming  to  be  entitled  to  

Kudiwaram right has to prove the same by virtue of any grant  

in his favour or in favour of his predecessors-in-interest and  

the Kudiwaram interest being a peculiar concept, depending  

upon the status and grant only, could not be claimed to have  

been acquired by mere possession or cultivation of lands for  

any length of  time.   Such rights  as an ordinary  cultivating  

tenant, have got to be asserted or sustained or substantiated  

under the ordinary tenancy law.  Inasmuch as further details  

are not required, there is no need to delve into other provisions  

of the Act.  

9

8) From the materials placed, it is seen that the following  

lands  were  granted  as  “Devadayam Inam”  in  favour  of  the  

appellant-Temple  in  Komarapalayam village,  Salem  District,  

Tamil Nadu:  

“S.No. Extent 2/1 0-51-0 2/2 1-41-5 3/1 3-92-5 3/3 1-08-0 3/2 0-12-0”

It is also not in dispute that the Inam grant was confirmed by  

the  British  Government  and  title  deed  was  also  issued  in  

favour  of  the  appellant-Temple  by  the  Inam Commissioner.  

Inasmuch  as  the  lands  were  Minor  Inam lands,  they  were  

notified and taken over by the Tamil Nadu Government under  

Act  30  of  1963,  therefore,  patta  proceedings  were  initiated  

under  the  said  Act  and  the  Assistant  Settlement  Officer,  

Thiruchengodu, by order dated 20.04.1981 granted Ryotwari  

Patta in favour of the appellant-Temple at Komarapalyam in  

respect of Survey Nos. 2/1, 2/2, 3/1 and 3/3 and classified  

Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track Poramboke.   

9) Aggrieved by the above order of the Assistant Settlement  

Officer, the Temple filed an appeal to the Tribunal being M.I.A.  

10

No. 27 of 1981 against the classification of Survey No. 3/2 as  

Cart  track  and  the  respondents  and  other  claimants  filed  

M.I.A. Nos. 29-31 and 35 of 1981 in respect of the first four  

items  mentioned  above.   By  order  dated  21.10.1982,  the  

Tribunal allowed all the appeals and remanded the matter to  

the Assistant Settlement Officer for fresh disposal.  Against the  

order of the Tribunal, the appellant-Temple filed S.T.A. Nos.  

34-37  of  1983  before  the  High  Court.   By  order  dated  

17.08.1988,  the  High  Court  dismissed  those  appeals  and  

confirmed the order of the Tribunal.  In the meanwhile, the  

portion  of  Survey  Nos.  3/1  and  3/3  was  acquired  by  the  

Government  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  for  Municipal  

Shandy and compensation amount was deposited in the Court  

by the Land Acquisition Officer by his award being L.A. No. 2  

of 1983 dated 01.07.1983.   

10) It is further seen that pursuant to the remand order by  

the  Tribunal,  fresh  enquiry  was  taken  up  by  the  Assistant  

Settlement Officer, Dharapuram in SR No. 4 of 1990 and by  

order dated 16.10.1992, the patta was granted in favour of the  

appellant-Temple  in  respect  of  Survey  Nos.  2/1,  2/2,  3/1B  

11

and 3/3, classifying Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track and also  

granted patta in respect of Survey No. 3/1A to an extent of 2-

39-0 hectares in favour of the respondents herein.  The other  

lands  in  Survey  Nos.  3/1B and 3/3  were  registered  in  the  

name  of  Municipality.   It  is  brought  to  our  notice  by  the  

learned  senior  counsel  for  the  respondents  that  up  to  this  

stage,  the  appellant-Temple  never  questioned  about  the  

character  of  the  lands as minor Inam lands.   However,  the  

Temple filed an appeal before  the Tribunal against the grant  

of  Ryotwari  Patta  in  favour  of  the  respondents  herein  in  

respect of land in Survey No. 3/1A.  It was highlighted that  

only in this appeal, for the first time, a contention was raised  

that  the  lands  notified  and  taken  over  by  the  State  

Government are not minor Inam lands and no proceedings can  

be taken for issue of patta under this Act.  In support of the  

above  claim,  they  also  relied  on  Sellappa  Goundan  and  

Others (supra) and K.M. Sengoda Goundar (supra).  It was  

the  stand  of  the  appellant-Temple  before  the  Tribunal  that  

since the village Komarapalayam Agraharam is not an Inam  

estate as defined under the Act No. 26 of 1948 as decided in  

12

Sellappa  Goundan  (supra) and  not  an  Inam  within  the  

meaning  of  Section  2(4)  or  part  of  an  Inam  village  within  

Section 2(11)  of  the  Act  No.  26 of  1963,  the  lands notified  

under Act No. 30 of 1963 cannot be notified as  minor Inam  

lands and they cannot fall within the ambit of the said Act.  

While  accepting the contention of  the  appellant-Temple,  the  

Court held that the lands are outside the purview of the Act  

No. 30 of 1963 and, therefore, cannot be subjected to grant of  

Ryotwari Patta.  Only on this ground, the order of Assistant  

Settlement Officer was set aside.  When this was challenged by  

way of  Special  Tribunal  Appeal  (STA) to the High Court,  by  

impugned order dated 09.10.2000, the High Court allowed the  

appeal and remanded the case to the Tribunal.

11) Inasmuch as the learned senior counsel for the appellant  

heavily relied on the above referred two decisions stating that  

the lands are not minor Inam lands, we perused the factual  

details,  issues  raised  and  ultimate  conclusion  in  both  the  

decisions.  In the first decision, namely, Sellappa  Goundan  

(supra), the question was whether the village  Komarapalayam  

Agraharam was an Inam estate coming within the purview of  

13

Act No. 26 of 1948.  In Komarapalayam Agraharam, there were  

a number of minor Inam lands granted in favour of various  

temples  including  the  appellant-Temple  which  has  been  

clearly set out in the Inam Register.  The decision in that case  

relates only to the village Komarapalayam Agraharam and not  

to the minor Inam grants existing in the said village.  Even, in  

the decision of this Court, namely,  K.M. Sengoda Goundar  

(supra), the  question  for  consideration  was  whether  the  

Komarapalayam Agraharam village is an existing Inam estate  

or a part of village Inam estate within the meaning of Act No.  

26 of 1963.  On going through the entire decision and factual  

details,  we agree with the  submission of  the learned senior  

counsel  for  the  respondents  and  conclude  that  these  two  

decisions have nothing to do with the minor Inam grants that  

were in existence in Komarapalayam Agraharam and notified  

under the Act No. 30 of 1963.  In Sellappa Goundan (supra),  

there  was  a  reference  to  the  Inam  Register  Extract  which  

shows  that  there  were  certain  Inam  lands  in  the  

Komarapalayam Agraharam village.  After extracting Column  

Nos. 11, 12 and 21 of the Inam Register Extract describing the  

14

history of the grant, the Court has concluded as under:

“The Inam Register  Extract  shows that  there  were  certain  minor inams in the Komarapalayam village.   Those inams  were  held  by  (1)  Sri  Damodaraswami  temple  (2)  Sri  Kailasanathawami temple,  (3)  Sri  Badrakali  temple,  (4)  Sri  Lakshminarayanaswami  temple  and  (5)  Sri  Angaliamman  temple.  The minor inams were also confirmed at the inam  settlement proceedings, and separate title-deeds were issued  to  the  respective  grantees.  Exhibits  A-2  to  A-6  are  the  extracts from the Fair Inam Register relating to them.”   

It  is  clear  that  these  Inams  were  held  not  only  by  the  

appellant-Temple  but  also  by  other  four  temples  and these  

particulars were reflected in the Inam settlement proceedings  

and title  deeds were  issued to  those grantees.   Exs.  A2-A6  

mentioned  therein,  which  are  extracts  from  the  Fair  Inam  

Register, clearly support the stand of the respondents.   

12) Once the lands are notified as minor Inam lands under  

Act No. 30 of 1963,  the same is binding on the authorities  

constituted under the Act.  Thereafter, they cannot go beyond  

the Act and decide the character of the lands, namely, whether  

the lands are minor Inam lands or not.  With these factual  

details, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High  

Court, particularly, in para 5 of its order.

15

13) In the light  of  the above discussion,  we are  unable  to  

accept the stand taken by the appellant-Temple and we fully  

agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.  In  

view of the same, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid  

of any merit.  Inasmuch as the High Court, by impugned order  

dated  09.10.2000,  remanded  the  matter  to  the  Tribunal  to  

decide the case on merit, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of  

the same as directed by the High Court within a period of six  

months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after  

affording opportunity to all the parties concerned.  The appeal  

is dismissed with the above direction.   However, there shall be  

no order as to costs.                    

 ...…………….…………………………J.            (P. SATHASIVAM)                               

 .…....…………………………………J.    (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 15, 2011.   

16