High Court · 2025

W.P.No.11024 of 2019IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.09.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW.P.No.11024 of 2019and W.M.P.No.11456 of 20191.S.K.S.Saravana Muthu2.S.K.S.Thirumalai ... Petitioners Vs.1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Ekambareshwarar Thirukoil, Sannathi Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. ... RespondentsPRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the _________Page 1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 2019records of the first respondent in M.P.No.23/2018/A3 dated 28.02.2018 and to quash the said proceedings and consequently to forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in T.S.No.77, Block No.14, Aminjikarai Village, No.40, Pulla Avenue, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. For Petitioners : Mr.T.M.HariharanFor Respondents: Mr.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3 O R D E RThe petitioners who claimed to be the original owners of the subject land have filed this writ petition challenging the notice issued by the first respondent dated 28.02.2018 to show cause as to why the petitioners should have been evicted from the property deeming them to be the encroachers. According to the petitioners, patta was issued in respect of the subject property in the name of their father and the third respondent by the Settlement Tahsildar way back on 31.03.1971. According to the petitioners, after the demise of their father, they continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property without any hindrance._________Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 20192. While so, the first respondent has issued notice dated 28.02.2018, wherein, it is mentioned that the petitioners have not paid the rent periodically and also refused to pay the fair rent fixed by the Temple Authorities.3. Whether the petitioners could enjoy the dwell ownership was considered by the First Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1294 and 1302/2021 dated 06.12.2023, wherein, the issue was elaborately discussed in detail by evaluating of all relevant laws and ultimately, it was held that the occupant of the building can only claim to be owner of the superstructure and the Temple is the real owner of the land and therefore, the Temple is entitled to revise the rent and the occupants are bound to pay the rent and the relevant paragraphs are as follows:-“12. To answer the questions, first we have to advert to the land tenure laws applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu. Prior to independence, under various enactments and rules, intermediaries were appointed by the then regimes, namely, Zamindars, Palaiyams, Jagirs and Inamdars. The Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 was enacted to regulate these holdings and to assure the ryots of possession of a _________Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 2019permanent holding in ryot land on payment of fair rent without being subject to eviction at Will. After independence, in order to acquire the rights of these intermediaries and also to introduce a ryotwari settlement of the estates, the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 was enacted. As per the same, the entire ‘estate‘ stood vested in the Government and the persons entitled for occupation were conferred ryotwari patta, upon which, the land stood vested in the individuals. An Assistant Settlement Officer was appointed to carry out the inquiry and pass order under the Act. Against the order, further appeals were provided. However, the said Act, was not made applicable in respect of the Inam Estates. Thereafter, another enactment, namely, the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 was enacted on the same lines in respect of the Inam Estates. However, even after the same, certain inams such as ‘religious inams‘ etc., were not covered under the said Act, which are termed as ‘minor inams‘ and as such the Act relevant to the present dispute, namely, the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 was enacted. 13. As per Section 2(5) of the Act, inam means grant of melvaram in any inam land or a grant of both the melvaram and kudiwaram in any land which grant has been made, confirmed or recognised by the government. Section 2(6) of the Act defines inamdar in respect of any inam means the person who held the inam immediately before the _________Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 2019appointed day. As per Section 3 of the Act, all minor inam lands vested with the Government. Under Section 4 of the Act, Assistant Settlement Officers were appointed to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 8 of the Act, provides for grant of ryotwari patta and it reads as follows :~“8. Grant of ryotwari pattas. ~ (1) Subject to the provisions of sub~section (2), every person who is lawfully entitled to the kudivaram in an inam land immediately before the appointed day whether such person is an inamdar or not shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of that hand.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub~section (1) in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 Tamil Nadu] Act 22 of 1959), and in the Tamil Nadu (Transferred Territory) Incorporated and Unincorporated Devaswoms Act, 1959 Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1959), the following provisions shall apply in the case of lands in an iruvaram minor inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institutions or for the performance of a charity or service connected therewith or of any other religious charity ~(i) where the land has been transferred by way of sale and the transferee or his heir, assignee, legal representative or person deriving rights through him had been in exclusive possession a such land ~ (a) for a continuous period of sixty years immediately before the 1st day of April 1960, such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land;_________Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 2019(b) for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the 1st day of April 1960, such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta if he pays as consideration to the Government in such manner and in such number of instalments as may be prescribed an amount equal to twenty times the difference between the fair rent in respect of such land determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule and the land revenue due on such land;(ii) in the case of any other land, the institution or the individual rendering service shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land.Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section, “land revenue“ means the ryotwari assessment including the additional assessment, water-cess and additional water-cess.(3) Any arrear of the amount due from any person under clause (i)(b) of subsection (2) shall be recovered together with such interest as may be prescribed as if it were an arrear of land revenue.(4) The Government shall [within such period as may be prescribed], pay to the institution concerned in one lump sum the amount specified in clause (i)(b) of sub~section (2) and such payment shall be made in such form and manner as may _________Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 2019be prescribed.(5) In the case of a minor inam held immediately before the appointed day by an individual on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution, the grant of ryotwari patta under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the provisions of section 21.”14. Section 12 of the Act provides for the liability to pay land revenue to the Government by persons to whom Ryotwari Patta is issued under the Act. Section 13 of the Act provides for vesting of the buildings within the inam land on the person who owned it and it is relevant to extract Section 13 which reads as follows :~“13. Vesting of buildings.- (1) Every building situated within the limits of an inam land shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that day; but the Government shall be entitled for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the appointed day falls, to levy the appropriate assessment thereon.(2) In this section, “building” includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto.”20. Moreover, the concept of dual ownership under Section 13 of the Act was also categorically laid down by the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in K.S.Thirugnasambandam Chettiar (cited supra) and relevant findings read thus :~_________Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 2019“It is plain from a bare reading of the Section and its setting that it is a provision occurring in Chapter III as one of the tools to confer ryotwari pattas to persons entitled. The Preamble of the Act makes it clear, as also its name, that the Act enables the State to accomplish acquisition of the rights of inamdars in minor inams in the State of Tamil Nadu and the introduction of ryotwari settlements in such inam lands. It nowhere envisaged that the rights of a person who held a ryotwari patta in his favour or was otherwise entitled to a ryotwari patts, were meant to be abolished under the Act. Rather on abolition of inams claims of persons entitlel, to the grant of ryotwari pattas had to be examined and settled. Under the provision under scrutiny too, it is patent that some ryotwari pattas had to be settled. Where buildings stood erected on inam lands immediately before the appointed day and the government in that event was entitled to an appropriate assessment as envisaged therein. Designedly, the building so erected was to include the site on which it stood and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto. Since the scheme of the Act patently was in establishment and preservation of ryotwari rights, it cannot be said that by virtue of Section 13, the ryotwari rights of the site~owners stood abolished or those rights got merged in the building and hence vesting in the building owner. Rather, a dual estate is conceived of in the scheme of Section 13, that is to say, the building may belong to one and the site to another. It is, therefore, not necessary that both the site and the building should belong to one and the same person so as to derive the benefit of Section 13 with effect from the appointed day. A dual estate is not repugnant to the provision, which evidently is of a very special nature, when ryotwari patta may not be admissible for a building per se, but may be admissible for the site standing thereon. Yet, this is a special provision which confers rights on the _________Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 2019building~owners also, though in the strict sense that right may not be a ryotwari right conferable in the form of a patta. The provision, self~contained as it is, allow, the Government levying an appropriate assessment thereon for each fasli year commencing with the fasli year in which the appointed day fell, which assessment obviously would be based on the assessment due on the site as if unbuilt, and not on the price of the building....“ (emphasis supplied)21. Thus, it can be seen that the appellant is only the owner of the superstructure. The second respondent temple is the owner of the land in question. It is entitled to revise the rent. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned Single Judge entitling the respondents to revise the rent.”4. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has become final. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court._________Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 20195. In the result, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02.09.2025NCC: Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking Order : Yes / NossbTo1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Exambareshwarar Thirukoil, Sannathi Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. _________Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11024 of 2019M.DHANDAPANI, J. ssbW.P.No.11024 of 2019and W.M.P.No.11456 of 201902.09.2025_________Page 11 of 11