S. Nagaraj vs The Sub-Collector and Others

V. Dhanapalan,J.

The cancellation order passed by the first Respondent-Sub-Collector, Hosur, in the proceedings in ROC.1638/2008(B2), dated 9.7.2008, u/s

19(5) of the Tamil NaduMinor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Rules,1965 (for short, ''the Rules'') read with Rules 19(1), (2), (3)

and (4) of the said Rules, wherein, the Ryotwari pattaissued to the Petitioner by the Settlement Tahsildar No. I,Salem, was cancelled and the lands

were recorded in thename of (i) Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple at Nallur Village(Vide T.D. No. 858) and (ii) Sri Someswara Swamy Temple

atHosur Village (Vide T.D. No. 859) in patta Nos. 232 and 2204,by deleting the name of S.Nagaraj (writ Petitioner) in theabove pattas and

further cancelling the order of theTahsildar, Hosur in fixing the fair rent and issuing pattain the name of the Petitioner, is called in question,seeking to

quash the same.

The case of the Petitioner goes thus:

2.1. The lands comprised in Survey Nos. 33, 425/3,425/1, 426/1, 426/3 and 329, Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk, were minor Inam lands covered

by T.D. No. 858 and taken overby the Government under the Madras Inams Abolition Act.Similarly, the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 6, 65,

72, 73and 74, Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk were minor Inam landscovered by T.D. No. 859 and taken over the Government underthe Minor

Inams Abolition Act. As a result of taking over,the Inam Tenure had been extinguished and the lands stoodconverted as Ryotwari. The Petitioner''s

fatherThiru.Sudanatha Dikshithar, son of Senga Dikshitharappeared for an enquiry initiated suo-motu by theSettlement Tahsildar-1, Salem, and

deposed in the enquiry,and stated that he is paying the land revenue to theGovernment for the said lands and produced Kist receiptsand that he is

the descendant of the original Grantee. ThePetitioner''s father who was performing Pooja to the Deityof Sri.Devaraja Swamy Temple, Nallur, and

he is willing torender the service of performing Pooja and requested forgrant of Ryotwari patta in his name.

2.2. In the enquiry conducted by the SettlementTahsildar-1, Salem, the Karnam of Nallur Village wasexamined and corroborated the evidence

given by thePetitioner''s father and that the family is in continuouspossession and Act ual enjoyment of the lands and there is No. objection for grant

of Ryotwari patta to thePetitioner''s father in the capacity of service holder ofthe religious institution. Accordingly by proceedings dated30.07.1968

in S.R. No. 545/M.I. Act 30/63 and S.R. No. 546/M.I. Act 30/63, the Settlement Tahsildar-1, Salem, grantedRyotwari patta to the Petitioner''s

father u/s 11read with Section 8(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1963(hereinafter

referred to as ''the Act ''), subject to thecondition that the Petitioner''s father performs the Poojaservices to the temple as per the terms of the

originalgrant.

2.3. u/s 21(a)(i) of the Act, a serviceholder is entitled to a Ryotwari patta u/s 8 inrespect of any land and he shall have the option either topay to

the religious intitution the amount specified underSection 21(4) and on such payment the land shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section

21(7), bydischarged from the condition of the service or the serviceholder shall hold the land and continue service subject tothe provisions

contained in Section 21(1), (2), (6) and(7). Though such option is available to the Petitioner''sfather, the same was not mentioned by the

Settlement 5 Tahsildar-I, Salem, in the order dated 30.07.1968.

2.4. The Petitioner''s father was granted Ryotwaripatta in respect of the land comrpised in S. No. 690/1, HosurTaluk, by order dated 11.05.1968

and the Petitioner''sfather submitted a representation after nearly 10 years on06.10.1977 stating that the option available to him underSection

21(3)(i) of the Act was omitted to be added andtherefore requested the Assistant Settlement Officer,Salem, to add the condition regarding the

payment to bemade u/s 21(3)(i) and issue a modified order. TheAssistant Settlement Officer stated that the right toexercise the option u/s 21(3) of

the Act goeswithout saying and he instructed the Tahsildar, Hosur, totake appropriate Act ion if the Petitioner''s fatherexercises his option u/s

21(3) of the Act. Thusthe Petitioner''s father was permitted by the AssistantSettlement Officer to exercise the option under Section21(3).

Accordingly a notice in Form XXIV under Rule 33(5)of the Rules was issued to the Petitioner''s father whoappeared for enquiry and expressed his

willingness to paythe fair rent as per rules and get discharged from thecondition of rendering service to the religiousinstitution. The Tahsildar, Hosur,

addressed the Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem, to clarify whether the optiongiven by the Petitioner''s father beyond the period of 6months can

be entertained. The Assistant Settlement Officerby order dated 23.11.1977 in ROC. 8376/77, mentioned thatsince such option was omitted in the

order of theSettlement Tahsildar, the Tahsildar, Hosur, may takeappropriate Act ion if the Petitioner''s father exercisesoption u/s 21(3). Based on

the said order theoption given by the Petitioner''s father was taken intoconsideration, enquiry conducted and after following theprocedure

established by law, the fair rent was fixed forthe property in S. No. 690/1 in Hosur Tahsildar''s ProceedingsRc.26461/77, dated 20.04.1979 and

the condition to servethe religious institution stood discharged.

2.5. The Petitioner became entitled to the abovereferred properties after the demise of his father on18.04.1995 by virtue of Section 21(7)(4)(i) of

the Act andalso by a Partition Deed. The Petitioner submitted apetition to the Tahsildar, Hosur, dated 2.1.1996 statingthat as a legal heir of his

father he is entitled to opteither to pay the fair rent to the religious institution tobe fixed by the Tahsildar and get discharged from thecondition

imposed in the Ryotwari patta regarding rendering service to the Temple u/s 21(3) of the Act andthat the Settlement Tahsildar in his order dated

30.07.1968has omitted to add that provisions of the said order wassubject to the liberty to exercise the option to getdischarged from the condition

by remitting the fair rent tobe fixed by the Tahsildar.

2.6. The Tahsildar, Hosur, after considering thematter and after taking note of the earlier orders dated20.04.1979 and 5.7.1996 under similar

circumstances in thecase of the Petitioner''s father entertained in theapplication for fixing fair rent. The Petitioner was servedwith the notice in Form

XXIV as required under Rule 33(5)on 1.2.1996. The Petitioner appeared for an enquiry on16.02.1996 and a statement was recorded expressing

hiswillingness to pay fair rent to get discharged of thecondition imposed for rendering service for the temple. TheTahsildar, Hosur, after following

the procedurecontemplated and after perusing the report of theAgricultural Officer (T & V), Hosur, and after perusing therecords directed the

Petitioner to pay Rs. 3,47,696/-underSection 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act and directed the first instalment to be paid on or before 31.07.1996.

ThePetitioner also remitted the said amount and thereafter, made an application on 5.8.1996 to the Tahsildar, Hosur fordeletion of the condition

imposed in the Ryotwari patta.Accordingly, the third Respondent, by proceedings dated5.8.1996, deleted the condition of performing the Pooja

toSri Devaraja Swamy Temple and similar order was also passedby the third Respondent, by order dated 29.6.2007 inrespect of the lands in S.

Nos. 65, 72, 73, 74 and 329,Nallur Village and by another order dated 15.9.2007 andupon remittance of the fair rent fixed, the thirdRespondent

by proceedings dated 13.7.2007, removed thecondition for the Ryotwari patta regarding the service tobe rendered and patta Nos. 2204 and

2236 were issued in thename of the Petitioner.

2.7. Thereafter, the Petitioner, for himself and onbehalf of his minor daughter, by sale deed dated 27.8.2007,registered as Document No.

14708/07 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Hosur, sold an extent of 8 hectare 1.94.0 inSurvey No. 65 to the fifth Respondent. The Petitioner

andhis children, by another sale deed dated 27.8.2007,registered as Document No. 12461/07 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Hosur, sold the

properties in S. Nos. 72, 73 and74, measuring a total extent of 6.81 acres to the fifthRespondent. The Petitioner also sold an extent of 2.70 acres

in S. No. 329 to the fifth Respondent by sale deeddated 25.10.2007, registered as Document No. 15003, on thefile of the Sub-Registrar, Hosur.

The Petitioner, by saledeed dated 6.12.2007, sold the lands in S. No. 33, an extentof 3.17 acres to the fifth Respondent, registered asDocument

No. 16767/07 on the file of the Sub-Registrar,Hosur.

2.8. While that being so, the first Respondent, in hisproceedings dated 9.7.2008 in ROC.1638 (B2), cancelled theproceedings of the Settlement

Tahsildar, dated 30.7.1968 bywrongly mentioning the date as 30.7.1980. Aggrieved by theabove order, the Petitioner has challenged the

saidproceedings in this Writ Petition on the ground that theorder is without jurisdiction, illegal, against law andliable to be set aside. There was

settlement made in favourof the Petitioner''s father, and again on the Petitioner andthe impugned order is passed without affording anopportunity to

the Petitioner and therefore, it is inviolation of the principles of natural justice and thePetitioner was not issued with any show cause notice aslaid

down under Rule 19(1) of the Rules prior to thepassing of the impugned order, and therefore, it is liableto be set aside.

The Respondents 1, 3 and 4 filed their counter affidavit, stating inter-alia as under:

3.1. The lands are covered by Ryotwari patta issued bythe Settlement Tahsildar, Salem in Title Deed Nos. 858 and859 under the Act, situated in

Nallur Villagae, HosurTaluk, and the lands relate to the service and maintenanceof Temples, details of which are as follows:

T.D. No. 858, Nallur Village:

Survey No.Extent Name of the Temple

33 3.68 acre Lands allotted for service to Sri

Devarajaswamy Temple of Nallur

Village

425/1 5.43 acre -do-

426/1 5.66 acre -do-

426/3 5.54 acre -do-

329 2.71 acre -do-

Total 23.09 acre

T.D. No. 859 Nallur Village:

Survey No.Extent Name of the Temple

6 1.26 acre Lands allotted for service to Sri

SomeswaraSwamy Temple of

Hosur Village

65 4.79 acre -do-

72 2.27 acre -do-

73 3.27 acre -do-

74 4.27 acre -do-

Total 15.86 acre

3.2. The above two Ryotwari pattas were issued to one Sudanatha Dikshithar, subject to the condition that he hadto perform service to the above

Temples as per the terms and conditions of the original grant. During the UpdatingRegistry Scheme also, patta was issued to the saidSudanatha

Dikshithar for the above lands in patta Nos. 232and 2204 of Nallur Village on condition that the service tothe above Temples had to be

performed. After the demise ofthe said Sudanatha Dikshithar on 18.4.1995, the services tothe Temples were not performed and the writ

Petitionerbeing the legal heir of the said deceased pattadar, got thepatta transferred to his name, vide Hosur Tahsildar''sD.Dis.4077/05, dated

13.7.2007 after paying 20 times offair rent wrongfully fixed by the Tahsildar, Hosur inviolation of the Rules contained in Rule 33(1) of the

TamilNadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)Rules, 1965, read with Section 16 of the Act. ThePetitioner without any prior

approval and permission fromthe competent authorities, sold the lands in S. No. 65 andS. No. 329 of the above village to one Krishnareddy,

S/oMunireddy, Uliyalam Village, Hosur Taluk, vide registered sale deeds dated 27.8.2007, 27.8.2007 & 25.10.2007,6.12.2007, registered as

Document Nos. 14708/2007,12461/2007, 15003/2007 & 16767/2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Hosur. Thus, there is sheer violation

ofcondition of Ryotwari patta issued to the father of thewrit Petitioner and therefore, the Sub-Collector, Hosurcancelled the Ryotwari patta issued

to the said SudanathaDikshithar, i.e. the father of the writ Petitioner, afterholding due enquiry on 1.4.2008 with the writ Petitionerand Village

Administrative Officer, Nallur Village, videRoc.1638(B2), dated 9.7.2008 and the same is impugned inthis Writ Petition.

3.3. The Ryotwari patta was prima-facie, issued oncondition that the said Sudanatha Dikshithar should performservices to the Temples, viz., Sri

Devaraja Swamy and SriSomeswara Swamy Temples, respectively, and the saidRyotwari pattas were issued u/s 8(2)(ii) of the Act, subject to the

condition that the pattadar shouldperform service to the Temples as per the terms of theoriginal grant. Thus, it is evident that the Ryotwaripattas

were issued based on specific condition only and theviolation of the condition defeats the basic tenet uponwhich the Ryotwari patta was issued.

3.4. The land in S. No. 690/1 mentioned without the nameof the village by the Petitioner, is not related to thepresent Writ Petition. Section 21 of

the Act shall apply inrespect of minor Inam which was held immediately before theappointed day by an individual (service holder) oncondition of

rendering service to a religious, educationalor charitable institution. The service holder shall,subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) be bound

tocontinue to render the service after the appointed day.Sub-section (3)(i) of Section 21 of the Act clearlystipulates that where a service holder is

entitled toRyotwari patta u/s 8 in respect of any land, heshall have the option to pay the religious institution theamount specified in Sub-section (4)

and on such payment,the land, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (7), be discharged from the condition of theservice. Sub-

section (7)(a) stipulates that so long as theservice holder renders the service, he shall be entitled tooccupy the lands in respect of which he is

entitled to apatta u/s 8, subject however to the payment ofthe assessment fixed u/s 16 or u/s 16-A. As per the Rules, u/s 16, the option referredto

in Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act shall be in Form 11 and it shall be exercised within six months from the date on which he was granted

Ryotwari patta.

3.5. The clarification of the Assistant SettlementOfficer, Salem that the option given by the Petitioner''sfather beyond the period of six months,

could beentertained, is against the penal provision of wellestablished Act, since clarification of an officer cannotprevail over an Act. From the very

admission of thePetitioner, it is clear that the alleged clarification wassought for from the Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem, bythe Tahsildar,

Hosur at the behest and to suit theconvenience of the writ Petitioner. The service holder,namely Sudanatha Dikshithar who died on 18.4.1995, did

notfile his option during his lifetime which he ought to havefiled within six months from the date on which he wasgranted Ryotwari patta to get

himself freed from thecondition of original grant. Therefore, in the absence ofany option filed by the service holder, the condition ofperforming

Pooja to the Temples for which the Ryotwaripatta was issued, continues and still exists.

3.6. The writ Petitioner under the pretext that he isthe legal heir of the service holder, has No. right underestablished law to file option at a later

date in lieu of his deceased father and to sell the property meant for theperformance of service to the Temples for monetary gainsagainst the

original condition. In any context, the serviceholder and after his death, his legal heir, should be thecustodian and occupant of the lands meant for

Templeservice and cannot sell the lands for explicit monetarygains. Thus, the Act ion of the writ Petitioner amounts tomanifest illegality and

therefore, the alleged orderspassed by the then authorities, are the handiwork of thewrit Petitioner to suit his illegal, mala-fide and ulteriormotives.

The very allegations of the Petitioner arecontradictory to each other, as the Petitioner has allegedthat the condition to serve stood discharged and if

that beso, there was No. necessity for the Petitioner to applyafresh for discharge of condition.

3.7. The Petitioner did not perform any service to theTemples after the demise of his father, i.e. after18.4.1995 and during the enquiry before the

Sub-Collector,Hosur, on 1.4.2008, the writ Petitioner did not speakanything regarding rendering of service to the Temples.Only with reference to

his petitions dated 2.1.1996 and31.3.2005, the Tahsildar, Hosur fixed the fair rent. TheTahsildar, Hosur had not scrupulously followed the

instructions and procedures contained in Rules 16 and 33(1)to (7) of the Rules. While fixing fair rent, the Tahsildar,Hosur, erroneously fixed the

fair rent u/s 8(3)of the Act and this Section clearly deals with the recoveryof arrear amount. Thus, the order of the Tahsildar, Hosur,in both fixing

the fair rent and transferring Ryotwaripatta in the name of the writ Petitioner, has No. bearing inthe eye of law and therefore, the order was

cancelled bythe impugned order of Sub-Collector, Hosur, dated 9.7.2008.

3.8. As per Sections 43(1)(2) and 44 of the Act, theappropriate Civil Court has the authority and jurisdictionto rescind with the conditions of the

original grant. TheTahsildar, Hosur has not followed the procedures containedin the Act while fixing the fair rent. The Act does notmention anything

to call for the clarification for theacceptance of the delayed filing of the option beyond sixmonths and the Tahsildar, Hosur, suo-motu has No.

authorityto rescind the condition imposed in the Ryotwari patta. Thewrit Petitioner hurriedly remitted an erroneously fixedamount as fair rent and

got patta transferred to his nameto suit his illegal, mala-fide motives to sell the landsand thereby illegally enrich himself. Thereafter, the writPetitioner

executed the sale deeds and sold away the lands meant for the service of the Temples leaving the Temples inlurch, devoid of any Pooja and

finances for the Temples.Not only in the Ryotwari patta issued by the SettlementTahsildar-I, Salem on 30.7.1968, but also in the pattaissued

during Updating Registry Scheme on 26.2.1985, it hasbeen clearly mentioned that the pattas were granted toperform service to Sri Devaraja

Swamy Temple at Nallur andSri Someswara Swamy Temple at Hosur. Therefore, thetrans Act ions by selling away the above lands by the

serviceholder''s legal heir, under the guise of sole pattadar ofthe lands, is null and void and illegal, since theperformance of service to the Temples

to the Temples, thevery purpose for which the Ryotwari pattas were issued, hasbeen put into jeopardy.

3.9. The order of the Settlement Tahsildar-I, Salem inSR 545 and SR 546/MI Act 30/63 Hosur Taluk/DharmapuriDistrict, was dated 30.7.1968

only and due to typographicalerror, the date was mentioned as 30.7.1980. The Sub-Collector initiated enquiry in the case on receipt of areport

dated 28.12.2007 from the Tahsildar (Retired)appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsDepartment. Opportunity was given

to the writ Petitionerunder Section 19(3), he was personally heard by the Sub-Collector, Hosur on 1.4.2008 and proceeded with the case asper

Section 19(4) publishing requisite Notice in Form 17 on2.4.2008 in the manner prescribed in the Rules and issuedorder cancelling the Ryotwari

patta.

3.10. The Sub-Collector, Hosur, cancelled the Ryotwaripatta issued on condition, and since the condition was notkept up as per Section 21(7)(b)

of the Act, mere non-stating of the provision of law about the right under the Act, will not vitiate the proceedings/orders issued andtherefore, they

prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The sixth Respondent-Temple has filed a counter affidavit, stating as follows:

4.1. The Petitioner has made an unsuccessful attemptto appropriate the valuable properties belong to the Idol.According to the sixth Respondent-

Temple, the large extentof lands situated in various Survey Nos. 33, 425/1, 425/3,426/1, 426/3 and 329 measuring in all about 23.09 acres asset

out in T.D. No. 858 Nallur Village and lands situated inS. Nos. 6, 65, 72, 73 and 74 as set out in T.D. No. 859measuring 15.86 acres absolutely

belong to ArulmighuDevaraja Swamy Temple and to the sixth Respondent-ArulmighuSri Someswara Swamy Temple, respectively. The two

Templesare group Temples and the Executive Officer who sworn to the counter affidavit, is the Executive Officer for both the Temples.

4.2. Originally, the patta was standing in the name ofthe Temples and after coming into force of the Act, thepatta for the said lands was issued u/s

11 readwith Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act to one SudanathaDikshithar, son of Senga Dikshithar and the said patta wasissued subject to the condition

that the said SudanathaDikshithar render services to the Temples as per originalgrant. Therefore, it is obvious that the original Inamdarswere the

two Temples. The proceedings of the SettlementTahsildar, dated 30.7.1968 and 30.9.1968 were withoutnotice to the Temples and therefore, not

binding on theTemples and also a nullity.

4.3. During the lifetime of Sudanatha Dikshithar, hedid not exercise the option available under the Act, nordid he render any service to the

Temples. The Petitioner,without doing any service to the Idol, got the pattatransferred in his name by virtue of a legal heirshipcertificate, which in

turn was based on the familypartition deed between Nagaraj and the motherJ.Subbalakshmi. Though the Petitioner claims to be theson, the sixth

Respondent is not aware of the same and the Petitioner will have to prove the same with materialdocuments. While so, the Tahsildar, who had

been speciallydeputed by the H.R. & C.E. Department, reported that thePetitioner wrongly got the patta transferred in his name,though he is not

entitled to the benefits conferred underthe Act.

4.4. The Petitioner made an application for exercisingthe option under the Act to discharge from the condition ofservice, but such application was

filed beyond the periodof six months from the date the Ryotwari patta was grantedas contemplated under the Act. Since the Ryotwari pattadardid

not exercise such option within the stipulated periodof six months, the order of the Tahsildar, grantingpermission, discharging the condition of

service is anullity in the eye of law and the Petitioner is notentitled to such relief. Even the order of the Tahsildardischarging the condition of service,

was passed withoutnotice to the Temples and on the ground of violation ofprinciples of natural justice, the said order is liable tobe set aside and

was rightly set aside. On the basis of thereport of the Tahsildar, H.R. & C.E. Department, the firstRespondent conducted an enquiry and after

observing all theformalities, including issuance of notice to the Petitioner, the first Respondent came to the conclusionthat before grant of Ryotwari

patta to the Petitioner, nonotice was given to the Temple and as such, the entireenuqiry is vitiated by irregularity and the order passed bythe

Tahsildar was a nullity. Therefore, the sixthRespondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Ms. Rita Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for thePetitioner in her submissions strenuously contended thatthe procedure and principles

contemplated under Rule 19 ofthe Rules, have not been complied with by the competentauthority before passing the impugned order. Therefore,

theorder is in violation of non-compliance of the relevantRules and in violation of the principles of naturaljustice. She further contended that as a

legal heir of theservice holder, the Petitioner is having right to claim thebenefits under the Ryotwari patta and as per the provisionsof law, he can

ask for discharge of the conditioncontemplated under the provisions of the Act and therefore,the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar cannot

befaulted with.

On the other hand, Ms. V.M. Velumani, learned Spl. G.P. appearing for Respondents 1, 3 and 4 contendedthat the patta granted to the

Inamdar was a conditional grant and the very tenet of the grant was that the Inamdarshould perform the Poojas to the Temple and therefore,

asservice holder, Ryotwari patta was granted. In case of anybreach of the condition, the authority competent caninitiate proceedings and cancel the

patta and hence, the Act ion of the Respondents in cancelling the patta, is inaccordance with law. She also submitted that as per Rule 16of the

Rules, option shall be exercised within six monthsfrom the date on which the grant was made and during thelifetime of the service holder, there was

No. option and inthe absence of any such option, the clarification soughtfor by the Tahsildar is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules,

which cannot be sustained, andtherefore, the first Respondent, after giving due notice,enquiry and following the procedures, has passed the

ordercancelling the patta.

Mr. S.Kandasamy, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for thesecond Respondent contended that the properties stand inthe name of the Temples and

they were the original ownersand thereafter, the lands in question were granted to thePetitioner''s father with a condition to perform the Poojasto

the Temples and No. one under the grant, can sell theproperties of the Temples to defeat the very object of the existence of the Temples, and

therefore, the performance ofPoojas be continued with an object that the Temples survivewith the properties with the sole condition that

theRyotwari can enjoy the properties as service holder and notas any other capacity and therefore, the Act of thePetitioner in selling the property is

against the interestof the Temples as well as the object of the grant made infavour of the Petitioner''s father.

Mr. A.S.Kailasam, learned Counsel appearing for thesixth Respondent also made similar contentions andsubmitted that the properties are under

the control of theTemples and if it is granted to any Ryotwari with conditionto do service to the Temples, it will not be taken away byany person

under the guise of legal heir and particularlyto sell the same to the persons for their monetary gain andenrichment.

On the above background of pleadings, I have heardthe learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perusedthe records and the relevant

provisions of law.

The circumspection of the f Act s, reveals that thelands in Title Deed No. 858 of an extent of 23.09 acres andTitle Deed No. 859 of an extent

of 15.86 acres of NallurVillage, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District, stand in the name of Arulmighu Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple and ArulmighuSri

Someswara Swamy Temple, respectively, and thereafter,the Settlement Tahsildar-I, Salem, in his proceedings dated30.7.1968 in SR. No. 545/MI

Act 30/63 and S.R. No. 546/MI Act 30/63, granted Ryotwari patta to Mr. Sudanatha Dikshithar,S/o Senga Dikshithar, who is the father of the

writPetitioner, with a condition that he should perform thePoojas to the Temples and it appears that the saidSudanatha Dikshithar has continued

with the same positionas service holder till his death on 18.4.1995 and after thedemise of the said Sudanatha Dikshithar, the Petitioner,being the

legal heir of the said deceased, got pattatransferred in his name, vide Hosur Tahsildar''s proceedingsin D.Dis. No. 4077/05, dated 13.7.2007.

It is seen that the Ryotwari patta was issued oncondition that the Petitioner''s father Sudanatha Dikshitharshould perform service to the

Temples, namely Sri DevarajaSwamy Temple and Sri Someswara Swami Temple, as per theRyotwari patta issued u/s 8(2)(ii) of the

Act.Therefore, the condition imposed on Ryotwari is specificand violation of the condition defeats the very basic tenetupon which the Ryotwari

was granted.

While so, the Respondents have now taken Act ion as there was breach of condition and therefore, the Ryotwaripatta granted in the name of

the Petitioner in the absenceof any option within the prescribed time limit, during thelifetime of Sudanatha Dikshithar, cannot now be taken bythe

legal heir of the said service holder to obtain grantin the name of the legal heir of the service holder to takeabsolute right of the entire properties,

and therefore, the Act ion taken by the first Respondent in cancelling theRyotwari patta in the impugned proceedings, dated 9.7.2008,is valid in

law or not, has to be examined.

The Act contemplates the grant of patta in favourof Ryotwari u/s 8(2)(ii) of the Act and the otherconditions u/s 21 of the Act, which shall

becomplied with in respect of any minor Inam, which was heldimmediately before the appointed day by the individual,namely the service holder, on

condition of renderingservice to the religious, educational or charitableinstitution. The service holder shall subject to theprovisions of Sub-section

(3) of Section 21 of the Act, bebound to continue to render the service after the appointedday, and Sub-section (3)(i) of Section 21 contemplates

thatwhere a service holder is entitled to Ryotwari patta underSection 8 of the Act, in respect of any land, he shall have the option either to pay to

the religious institution theamount specified in Sub-section (4) and on such payment,the land shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section (7) be discharged from the condition of service, orto hold the land and continue to render service subject tothe provisions contained in

Sub-sections (1), (2), (6) and(7). Further, Sub-section (7)(a) to Section 21 of the Act stipulates that, for so long as the service holder rendersthe

service, he shall be entitled to occupy permanently thelands in respect of which he is entitled to patta underSection 8, subject, however, to the

payment of theassessment fixed u/s 16 or u/s 16-A, asthe case may be in respect of such lands. The optionreferred to in Sub-section (3) of

Section 21 of the Act shall be in Form-11, and it shall be exercised within sixmonths from the date on which he was granted Ryotwari patta.

A reading of the above provisions of law makes itclear that the service Inams are to be under the aboveSections and Section 21(6)(b) of the

Act provides that ifthe service holder fails to render service, the prescribedofficer shall, after such enquiry and after such notice tothe service

holder, as may be prescribed in this behalf,notify such failure in such manner as may be prescribed, and he shall then declare that tasdik allowance

payable tothe institution in respect of the period subsequent to thefailure, shall be absolute property of the institution andthe institution shall be at

liberty to make sucharrangement as it thinks fit for the performance of theservice.

Similarly, Section 21(7)(a) of the Act providesthat for so long as the service holder renders the service,he shall be entitled to occupy

permanently the lands inrespect of which he is entitled to a patta u/s 8,subject however to the payment of assessment fixed underSection 16 or u/s

16-A, as the case may be, inrespect of such lands. Section 21(7)(b) of the Act contemplates that if the service holder fails to render theservice, the

prescribed officer, shall, after such enquiry,and after such notice to the service holder as may beprescribed in this behalf, notify such failure in

suchmanner as may be prescribed, and he shall then declare thatthe service holder''s right to occupy permanently the landunder Clause (a) shall

cease and determine, and theinstitution shall be at liberty to make such arrangement asit thinks fit for the performance of the service and shallbe

entitled to hold the lands as its absolute property, subject, however, to the payment of the assessment fixedtherefor u/s 16 or Section 16-A as the

case maybe.

In the instant case, the first Respondent beingthe competent authority, has taken into consideration allthe above provisions of the Act and the

Rules and proceededto assess the situation and accordingly, the Sub-Collector,Hosur on 1.4.2008, conducted enquiry and found that

theTahsildar, Hosur, had not scrupulously followed theinstructions and the procedures contained in Rules 16 and33(1) to (7) of the Rules while

fixing the fair rent andthe Tahsildar, Hosur, has erroneously fixed the fair rentunder Section 8(3) of the Act and this Section clearlydeals only with

the recovery of arrear amount. The order ofthe Tahsildar, Hosur, in fixing the fair rent andtransferring the Ryotwari patta in the name of

thePetitioner, has No. bearing in the eye of law, andtherefore, the Sub-Collector, Hosur, cancelled the patta,by order dated 9.7.2008.

To examine the above position, it is to be seenthat the Petitioner''s father, who was having the right ofthe Ryotwari patta with condition as a

service holder, diedon 18.4.1995 and thereafter, the Petitioner applied to Hosur Tahsildar and he conducted the proceedings and fixed the fair rent

to the above lands.

Section 8 of the Act contemplates the power ofgrant of Ryotwari patta and u/s 8(1), subject tothe provisions of Sub-section (2), every person

who islawfully entitled to ""Kudiwaram"" in an Inam landimmediately before the appointed day whether such person isan Inamdar or not, shall, with

effect on and from theappointed day, be entitled to Ryotwari patta in respect ofthat land and Section 8(2) of the Act provides thatnotwithstanding

anything contained in Sub-section (1) inthe Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) and

in the Tamil Nadu(Transferred Territory) Incorporated and UnincorporatedDevaswoms Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1959), theprovisions

mentioned therein shall apply in case of landsin an ""Iruvaram"" minor Inam granted for the support ormaintenance of religious institution or for the

performanceof a charity or service connected therewith or of any otherreligious charity and Sub-clause (ii) to Section 8(2)provides that in the case

of any other land, theinstitution or the individual rendering service shall, witheffect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a Ryotwari patta in

respect of that land.

The object of the above provisions of law clearlyindicates that the Inams are granted for the support ormaintenance of religious institution or for

the performanceof a charity or service connected therewith or of any otherreligious charity, and it was Act ed upon with condition tothe Ryotwari

at the time of grant of patta and the optionis available to him under Rule 16 of the Rules, whichprovides that the Ryotwari shall exercise his option

withinsix months from the date on which he was granted Ryotwaripatta.

In the instant case, the Ryotwari who was having aright of conditional patta, has not exercised his optionfor change, as per Rule 16 of the Rules

in the formprescribed and therefore, the conditional Ryotwari pattagranted to the Petitioner''s father has become final andwhether the claim of the

Petitioner that he can also applyfor grant of patta or transfer the same in his name withsimilar option available to the original Ryotwari, with

anoption to change the condition to form of patta with fairrent fixation in order to gain the absolute right over thelands in favour of him, can be

done, as the SettlementOfficer has assigned the land with condition.

Whether such an option is made to the competentauthority and whether such an option is available to thePetitioner after the prescribed time

limit as per theRules, have to be examined. It is pointed out that as perRule 43 of the Rules, the power is vested with theTahsildar of the local

jurisdiction for accepting theoption exercised by the service holder with regard toSection 21(3) of the Act.

In this case, for fixation of fair rent or toaccept the option exercised by the service holder underSection 21(3) of the Act, the Tahsildar is

competent todecide the option exercised by the service holder. Thequestion of exercising the option by a service holder, is amatter concerned with

the Petitioner''s claim, which is tobe examined as per the above provision. In view of theabove power conferred upon the Tahsildar, the

Tahsildar,Hosur, has taken up the application made by the Petitionerand considered the claim of the Petitioner for acceptingthe option of change

over from the service holder to fairrent fixation. The Tahsildar, Hosur, in his proceedingsdated 5.8.1996 in ROC.469/96 C2, passed an order to

theeffect that as per their office proceedings dated 5.7.1996in ROC.469/96 C2, the fair rent was fixed in respect of G. Nos. 33 etc., of Nallur

Village, Hosur Taluk, for thepurpose of deleting the condition imposed in patta No. 232imposing that the pattadar should perform Poojas to

SriDevaraja Swamy Temple. It is also stated in the saidproceedings dated 5.8.1996, that in his application, thewrit Petitioner-S.Nagaraj has stated

that he has remitted asum of Rs. 54,503/-in chalan No. 215, dated 5.8.1996 inrespect of S. No. 425/1A and another sum of Rs. 24,503/-inchalan

No. 217, dated 5.8.1996 in respect of S. No. 420/3B ofNallur Village, Hosur Taluk at the State Bank of Mysore,Hosur and requested to delete

the conditions aforesaid fromthe patta in respect of S. Nos. 425/1 and 426/3B. It isfurther stated in the said proceedings dated 5.8.1996

thatinasmuch as the entire amount fixed as fair rent in respectof G. Nos. 425/1A and 426/3B of Nallur Village, Hosur Taluk,has been remitted by

the applicant, it was ordered that thecondition of performing Poojas to Devaraja Swamy Temple forthese survey numbers, were ordered to be

deleted and thesetwo survey numbers were ordered to be registered in thelast patta of the son of Sudanatha Dikshithar.

In the proceeding of the Tahsildar, Hosur, dated5.7.1996, taking into account the Petitioner as the solelegal heir of the deceased pattadar

Sudanatha Dikshithar, who has then applied for the fixation of fair rent to thelands mentioned therein to get discharge the conditionimposed in the

Ryotwari patta issued and also taking noteof a similar case in which the same issue was involved, theAssistant Settlement Officer, Salem, in his

proceedings inRoc.8376/77, dated 23.11.1977, has stated that the omissionto incorporate the option to be exercised by the grantee issubject to

Section 21(3) also and it goes without sayingthat the orders issued u/s 8(2)(ii) of the Act oncondition of service, was subject to Section 8(5) read

withSection 21(3) of the Act and based on the same, theTahsildar''s predecessor in his Roc. No. 20491/77, dated20.4.1979 issued orders fixing

the fair rent for the landscovered in that order and hence, the petition requesting tofix fair rent was entertained. Accordingly, a notice inForm XXIV

as required under Rule 33(5) of the Act wasissued to the Petitioner on 1.2.1996 and the Petitionerappeared before the Tahsildar on 16.2.1996

and gave astatement expressing his willingness to pay the fair rentto be fixed to get discharge the condition imposed forrendering service to the

Temples.

It is further stated in the proceedings dated5.7.1996 that as per the Schedule to the Act which deals with the provisions relating to the

determination of fairrent, the normal gross produce in a year has to be takeninto account for fixing the fair rent and the AgriculturalOfficer (T & V),

Hosur was addressed by the Tahsildar''sOffice Roc.496/96 C2, dated 1.2.1996 and the AgriculturalOfficer (T & V), Hosur, in his report dated

27.2.1996, hasfurnished the gross produce of the lands in a normal yearfor the purpose taking Fasli 1405 as the normal year. Thevalue of the

gross produce as furnished by the AgriculturalOfficer (T & V), Hosur, in his report dated 27.2.1996, hasbeen taken into account in fixing the fair

rent to be fixedaccording to the provisions in the Schedule to the Act.Accordingly, the fair rent was fixed for the dry lands forwhich Ryotwari patta

was issued by the SettlementTahsildar, Salem, in his order, as per the Scheduleattached to the said proceedings dated 5.7.1996. Thiru.S.Nagaraj,

son of Late Sudanatha Dikshithar, Hosur,was directed to pay the amount noted in the Schedule, i.e.Rs. 3,47,695.80 or Rs. 3,47,696/-under

Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Act and the above amount was to be paid in ten annualinstalments together with interest at 5% per annum as if itwere an

arrear of land revenue as per Sub-section (3) ofSection 8 of the Act.

In respect of the other lands in S. Nos. 65, 72, 73,74 and 329, the fair rent was fixed as per the proceedingsof the Tahsildar, Hosur, dated

29.6.2007 and the amount wasremitted as stated in the proceedings of the Tahsildar,Hosur, dated 13.7.2007, but not looking into Rule 16 of

theRules, which contemplates that an Inamdar can exerciseoption within six months from the date of grant.

The Petitioner claims that after the option wasexercised by him, the same was considered by the Tahsildaras per the power conferred upon

him under Rule 43 of theRules and the fair rent was fixed and the option exercisedby him has been determined and thereafter, the Petitionerhas

been discharged from the condition of doing Poojaservice to the Temples. Therefore, the impugned orderpassed by the Sub-Collector is contrary

to the fair rentfixation and the discharge of the condition and entirely,the right has been vested with the Petitioner in respect ofthe lands, which was

the matter before the Sub-Collector.In such a situation, the Sub-Collector is empowered toproceed to enquire into the matter, by following

theprocedures contemplated under law. Therefore, it has to beexamined as to whether the impugned order is passed incompliance with the

procedures contemplated under Rule 36 19(1) to (6) of the Rules.

The claim was made by the Petitioner after thedeath of his father on 18.4.1995, namely, his applicationfor transfer of patta, fair rent fixation

and thereafterhis application for discharging the condition as a serviceholder, which was granted to the original pattadar, namelythe Petitioner''s

father and thereafter, the Petitioner hasremitted the required amount to the account of thecompetent authority. It was considered by the Sub-

Collectorin the impugned order based on enquiry conducted by theSub-Collector on 1.4.2008 and after enquiring thePetitioner about his

performance of the service of Poojasto the Temples, the Sub-Collector, while proceedingfurther, has taken into account the proceedings of

theTahsildar, Hosur based on the Petitioner''s applicationdated 2.1.1996 and 31.3.2005 and it was the opinion of theSub-Collector that the

Tahsildar, Hosur, has notscrupulously followed the instructions and procedurescontained in Rules 16 and 33(1) to (7) of the Rules and

theTahsildar has erroneously fixed the fair rent under Section8(3) of the Act, which Section deals with the recovery ofarrear amount and therefore,

the order of the Tahsildarboth in fixation of fair rent and transferring the Ryotwari patta in the name of the Petitioner, has No. bearing in theeye of

law, and therefore, the Sub-Collector cancelled theorder issuing patta to the Petitioner.

Even assuming that the entire proceedings of theTahsildar in the Sub-Collector''s opinion appear to be wrongand not in accordance with the

provisions of the Act andthe Rules, both in fixation of fair rent and transferringthe Ryotwari patta, and exercising the option after theexpiry of the

prescribed period before passing any order.The Sub-Collector has to follow the procedures contemplatedunder Rule 19 of the Rules, which

provides as to how anenquiry under Sections 21(6)(b) and 21(7)(b) of the Act hasto be conducted and what are the procedures to be followed.

Rule 19(1) of the Rules provides that the enquiryunder Clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 21 andclause (b) of Sub-section (7) of Section

21 shall be eithersuo-motu or on application from the institution concernedor from other persons interested and shall be conducted bythe Revenue

Divisional Officer of the division concerned.Rule 19(2) of the Rules provides that notice regarding thedate, time and place of enquiry shall be in

Form No. 12 inrespect of enquiry under Clause (b) of Sub-section (6) ofSection 21 and in Form No. 13 in respect of the enquiry under Clause

(b) of Sub-section (7) of Section 21 and shallbe served on the service holder concerned. A copy of thenotice shall also be served on the applicant

and on theinstitution, if the institution is not the applicant. Rule19(3) of the Rules contemplates that the RevenueDivisional Officer shall make a

summary enquiry into thematter and he shall hear the service holder, theinstitution and other person interested, if any, and givehis decision after

giving them a reasonable opportunity foradducing evidence. Rule 19(4) of the Rules states that ifthe decision aforesaid is that there has been failure

torender the service by the service holder, the RevenueDivisional Officer shall notify such failure in Form No. 14in respect of cases falling under

Clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 21 and in Form No. 15 in respect of casesfalling under Clause (b) of Sub-section (7) of Section 21and

shall publish such failure. Rule 19(5) of the Rulesprovides that the decision of the Revenue DivisionalOfficer shall be communicated to the parties

concerned.Rule 19(6) of the Rules provides that the declarationreferred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 21and in Clause (b) of Sub-

section (7) of Section 21 shall bemade immediately after the publication of the notification referred to in Sub-rule (4) and shall be in Form No. 16

or17, as the case may be and the copies of the declarationshall be served on the service holder and on theinstitution.

While examining the above position, it has to bedetermined whether the impugned order has been passed bythe authority concerned by

following the procedurescontemplated under Rule 19 of the Rules. On verification ofthe entire records, in page 62, it is found that there wasa

notice of enquiry, which deals with the notice offixation of fair rent and not in respect of the failure ofthe service holder in performing the condition.

It is pointed out by learned Counsel for thePetitioner that the Forms in Form No. 12 as well as FormNo. 13, have not been scrupulously

followed in the manner asprescribed for issuance of notice as contemplated in Rule19(2) of the Rules and also the enquiry to be conducted

ascontemplated under Rule 19(3) of the Rules and enquiry isalso to be conducted in respect of the failure of serviceholder to perform Pooja to the

Temples and thereafter, thedecision taken shall be communicated to the partiesconcerned.

On a perusal of the entire records, what transpires is that though the procedure prescribed underForm No. 17 is followed by the Respondents,

the procedurescontemplated under Rule 19 of the Rules, have not beenfollowed by the competent authority before cancelling thepatta in the name

of the Petitioner. of course, it is amatter for the competent authority to go into the veryobject and tenet of the grant of conditional Ryotwari pattafor

a particular institution, namely the Temples in theinstant case and if there is a failure on the part of thePetitioner in respect of such performance and

if the optionis not exercised in the manner as provided under Rule 16and thereafter, whether such option can be accepted beyondthe prescribed

time limit, are all the matters for theconcerned authority to examine and enquire, after followingthe procedures and thereafter, it can be decided on

whatright the Petitioner is entitled to. The Respondents havingnot followed the requisite procedures as provided under the Act and the Rules, the

impugned order dated 9.7.2008 passedby the first Respondent, i.e. the Sub-Collector, Hosur,suffers from procedural irregularity and infirmity and

thesame cannot be sustained and the matter requires re-consideration by the competent authority.

It is also to be further noticed that the principles of natural justice have not been followed by theRespondents while passing the impugned

order. The Act contemplates a particular procedure to conduct enquiry andhear the parties concerned and thereafter, a decision is tobe taken by

the competent authority and such a decision isalso to be communicated. If that procedure is not followed,it amounts to violation of principles of

natural justice.Law is well settled that if the procedures contemplatedunder the Act /Rules are not adhered to by the competentauthority, it amounts

to violation of principles of naturaljustice. This position of law is fortified by the judgmentof the Apex Court reported in Mysore Urban

Development Authority by its Commissioner Vs. Veer Kumar Jain and Others, .

For all the reasons stated above, the impugnedorder passed by the first Respondent is set aside. However,looking into various f Act ors and

the object of theconditional Ryotwari patta and the manner in which theoption has been exercised, the matter requires detailed re-consideration by

the competent authority, and therefore,the matter is remanded to the first Respondent for freshconsideration and passing orders, after following

theprocedures contemplated under Rules 16, 19 and 33(1) to (7)of the Rules and the other provisions of the Act and the Rules, after giving an

opportunity of hearing to all theparties concerned and on a perusal of the entire records.It is open for the parties in the Writ Petition, thepersons

concerned and the stake-holders in this case toraise all the contentions which are all agitated in thisWrit Petition, before the competent authority.

Thecompetent authority shall pass appropriate orders,uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this WritPetition, on merits and in

accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible.

With the above observations and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.