ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE Vs NALLAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. .
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,B.S. CHAUHAN
Case number: C.A. No.-003537-003537 / 2002
Diary number: 2009 / 2001
Advocates: R. NEDUMARAN Vs
A. T. M. SAMPATH
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
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