AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—This writ appeal has been preferred by the Executive Officer of Sri Ranganathaswamy Devasthanam, Srirangam being
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20th September, 1991 made in W.P. No. 8168 of 1983. Heard Mr. P. Gopalan,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V. Rengaraju, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
The only and substantial point that arise for consideration in this appeal is: -
Whether the appellant is entitled to payment of Dastic allowance u/s 20 of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963?
Mr. P. Gopalan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge had misconstrued Section 20 of Tamil Nadu Act 30
of 1963 and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice as well as denial of dastic-allowance. According to the learned counsel, either under
sub Section (1) of Section 20 or under sub Section (2) of Section 20 the appellant, by being a religious institution which holds the melvaram in
respect of the suit lands is entitled for payment of dastic-allowance in terms of Section 20 of the Act.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate contends that no interference is called for with respect to the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and having failed in its attempt to get patta, the appellant cannot seek for payment of dastic-allowance.
The short facts leading to the appeal could be summarised briefly:- In respect of Survey No: 46 covered by T.D. No. 1604 of H. Vellodu
Village. Initially patta was ordered to be granted in favour of the appellant-temple by the Settlement Tahsildar. As against the said patta
proceedings the occupants preferred an appeal before the Inams Abolition Tribunal which Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the
Settlement Tahsildar and remanded the case to the Settlement Tahsildar for de novo proceedings. After remand, the Settlement Tahsildar rejected
the claim of the appellant and directed grant of patta favour of Muthu Naicker, occupant in Survey No. 46 u/s 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of
1963 treating the land as personal grant to the person rendering services. Being aggrieved by the said order of Settlement Tahsildar the appellant-
temple preferred an appeal before the Inams Abolition Tribunal, Madurai. The said Tribunal by order dated 17.7.1976 rejected the appeal and
confirmed the order of the Settlement Tahsildar. The order of the Tribunal has become final. Thereafter the appellant-temple moved the Settlement
Officer for direction to pay dastic-allowance. The claim of dastic-allowance had been rejected by the settlement officer on the sole ground that the
petitioner had allowed the proceedings of the Inams Abolition Tribunal to become final. Being aggrieved by the proceedings of the settlement
officer rejecting the claim for payment of dastic allowance the appellant moved the first respondent, who by proceedings dated 21.3.1983 rejected
the same. Being aggrieved by the said rejection the appellant filed the writ petition No. 8168 of 1983 on the file of this Court. The learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant-temple is not entitled for payment of dastic allowance under the Tamil Nadu Act 30/63.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the present appeal has been preferred
It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that though patta was granted in favour of the appellant-temple while
applying the rule of presumption that the Inam was a Iruvaram grant, but subsequently after remand patta was granted to the occupant u/s 8(1) of
the Act as it was held that the occupant is entitled to Kudivaram while holding the statutory presumption has no application to the facts of the case.
A patta has been ordered to be issued ultimately in favour of the occupant u/s 8(1) of the Act. That being so, it is clear that the occupant namely
the person who rendered services is entitled to Kudivaram while the Melvaram was always held by the appellant-temple.
Even assuming that the orders directing grant of patta in favour of the individual had been allowed to become final, in our considered view it
does not make am difference so far as the claim for payment of dastic allowance is concerned. Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963
provides where the Inamdar of an Iruvaram minor Inam is a religious, educational or charitable institution, or an individual holding the Inam on
condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution, the Government shall pay to the institution every fasli year
commencing with the fasli year in which the appointed day falls, as a Tasdic allowance an amount equal to the average net annual miscellaneous
revenue as calculated u/s 19 of the Act. Section 19 prescribes the scale of compensation. Assuming that the appellant''s case will not fall under sub
Section (1) of Section 20, we are of the considered view that the appellant''s claim will fall under sub Section (2) of Section 20, and such claim has
to be sustained.
Sub Section (2) of Section 20 reads thus:-
Where the Inamdar of a melvaram minor is a religious, educational or charitable institution, or an individual holding the inam on condition of
rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution, the Government shall pay to the institution every fasli year commencing with the
fasli year in which the appointed day falls, an amount equal to the net tasdik allowance as calculated under sub Section (3).
In terms of the above sub Section when the Inamdar of a melvaram minor Inam is a religious, educational or charitable institution, or an
individual holding the inam on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution, the Government shall pay to the
institution every fasil year commencing with the fasli year in which the appointed day falls, an amount equal to the net tasdik allowance as calculated
under sub Section (3) of Section 20
It is true that the claim of Iruvaram by the appellant had been negatived and patta has been ordered to be issued to the service holder as he is
entitled to Kudivaram and obviously the appellant was holder of the melvaram. Once it is held that the appellant-temple, a holder of Melvaram, it
follows automatically that the appellant temple is entitled to payment of dastic allowance under sub Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. No other
construction could be placed on sub Section (2) of Section 20.
The object of Section 20 also should not be lost sight of while interpreting Section 20 of Tamil Nadu Act 30/63. On a plain reading of Sub
Section (2) of Section 20, it is quite clear and it was never intended never envisaged and never laid down so to den; payment of dastic allowance
merely because patta has been granted u/s 8(1) of the Act while admittedly the appellant was entitled to Melvaram. No other interpretation could
be placed on Section 20. The claim of the appellant would definitely fall under sub Section (2) of Section 20 and there is no escape. The view of
the Learned Single Judge that patta has been granted in favour of the Inamdar, and being a personal grant, the appellant is not entitled to payment
of dastic allowance, cannot be sustained. In terms of Section 20 the appellant who holds the melvaram, even after rejection of their claim of
Iruvaram grant is entitled to payment of dastic allowance. It may be that the appellant-temple may not be entitled for patta u/s 8(1) of the Act. But
that would not mean the right of the appellant-temple to get compensation by way of dastic allowance is not excluded.
The further approach that Section 20 of the Act will come into play only if the temple is able to convince the authorities and secures a patta is a
misconstruction and it cannot be sustained as the intendment and object of the Act as well as the textual context also had been lost sight of by the
Learned Single Judge. Issuing Patta u/s 8(1) of the Act falls under a different scheme, while scheme for payment of dastic allowance has to be
decided with reference to Section 20 and 19 of the Act.
Even assuming the patta has been granted u/s 8(1) in favour of the occupier, being abolition of the minor Inam, it follows that the appellant-
temple is entitled for payment of dastic allowance. In that view of the matter on a fair construction of Section 20(2) of the Act we are of the
considered view that this appeal has to be allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside and consequently there shall be a
direction in favour of the appellant and against the respondent for payment of dastic allowance u/s 20(2) read with Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu
Act 30 of 1963. The Writ Appeal is allowed as prayed for and consequently this Court holds that the appellant-temple is entitled for payment of
dastic allowance in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 30/63 and the respondents are directed to fix dastic allowance payable in respect of the said extent
within six months from the date of communication and also disburse the same. The appeal is allowed, with costs.