✦ High Court of India · 12 Sep 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 12 Sep 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

12 Sep 2025

Bench

Learned Single Single The learned Single S.M.SUBRAMANIAM ANDC.SARAVANAN

Length

1,695 words

Acts & Sections

CE Act 1959 Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act 1983

W.A.No.389 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 12.09.2025CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANANWrit Appeal No.389 of 2024andC.M.P.No.2596 of 2024Sudheswaran ... Appellant Vs.1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri Division, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 701.4.The Tahsildar, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 808.Page No.1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 20245.The Village Administrative Officer, Jakkasamudram Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District – 636 808.6.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.7.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Kottai Mariamman Temple, Salem – 636 001.8.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments, Dharmapuri – 636 701.9.The Executive Officer, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments, Palacode, Dharmapuri District – 636 808.10.The District Registrar, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 701. ... RespondentPrayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 06.06.2022 in W.P.No.6440 of 2022.For Appellants: Mr.C.Umashankar For R1 to R5: Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government PleaderPage No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 2024For R6 to R9: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)For R10: Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government PleaderJ U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM)This writ appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 06.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.6440 of 2022.2.The Writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri dated 11.01.2022, to conduct re-survey and issue Patta in the name of Arulmigu Athinarayanaswamy Temple, at Jakkasamudram Village, Dharmapuri District.3.The application submitted by the Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 for UDR Patta had been entertained by the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri. The District Revenue Officer has Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 2024conducted an enquiry and granted Patta in the name of the subject temple. The said order came to be challenged in the writ proceedings. Since the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition, the present writ appeal came to be filed. 4.Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr.C.Umashankar would submit that as per the order of the Settlement Officer dated 01.06.1968, the great grand father of the petitioner Thiru.Ramanuja Iyer was performing Puja and Patta was granted under Section 8(3)(ii) r/w Section 20 (1) (2) and (3) of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.5.The order passed by the Settlement Officer relied upon by the appellant would reveal that the appellant, his father and grand father were in continuous possession of the subject property and they have rendered Puja services to the temple namely, Athinarayanaswamy Temple and are willing to continue the performance of Puja services, to hold the suit land permanently. Relying on the said statement, the Settlement Officer has passed the order, in exercise of the powers delegated in G.O.No.401/Revenue, dated Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 202418.08.1965. Accordingly, the subject land was granted in the name of Thiru.Ramanuja Iyer and Thiru.Duraisamy Iyer and consequently, Ryotwari Patta was granted under Act 30 of 1963.6.Mr.C.Umashankar, would further submit that they are performing puja and in occupation of the subject property and subsequently sold the property in favour of third parties, in order to meet out their personal and family expenditures and to lead their livelihood.7.Sale of temple property has not been disputed between the parties. Learned Single Judge considered Section 21 of the Act 30 of 1963 but long possession of the family members of the petitioner and performing pujas continuously are not considered and dismissed the writ petition.8.Learned Counsel for the appellant would rely on Section 21 of T.N.Act 30 of 1963 and states that the appellant is continuously performing the puja services to Athinarayanasamy Temple. Therefore, the order of the Settlement Officer assisted by their possession would be sufficient to grant the relief. The District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 2024application for grant of UDR Patta. Thus, the impugned order which was under challenge in the writ proceedings is to be set aside.9.Learned Special Government Pleader Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan appearing on behalf of the HR & CE Department would oppose by stating that right to alienate the temple property has not been conferred on the petitioner or his ancestors in order dated 01.06.1968 by the Settlement Officer. Therefore, the alienation of property made by the petitioner is null and void in view of Section 41 of the HR & CE Act. When the entire transaction between the petitioner and third parties found to be null and void and the UDR Patta granted in the name of the temple is in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.10.Considering the arguments as advanced between the appellant and the respondents to the lis on hand, Act 30 of 1963, as far as the facts in the present case are concerned is a general Act. Act 30 of 1963 defines “Inam” means (i) a grant of melvaram in any inam land; or (ii) a grant of both the melvaram and the kudivaram in any inam land; which grant has been Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 2024made, confirmed or recognised by the Government. Section 21 deals with “Service Inams”. As far as the temple properties are concerned, the provisions of the HR & CE Act would be applicable, since it is a special Act. When the Special Act provides dealing of Inam lands and its resumption, the general Act cannot be applied. Section 34 of the HR & CE Act deals with alienation of immovable property. Sub-Section (1) states that “Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution”11.Section 41 provides resumption and re-grant of inam granted for performance of any charity or service. Sub-Section (1) denotes that “Any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of the whole or any portion of any inam granted for the support of maintenance of a religious institution or for the performance of a charity or service connected therewith or of any other religious charity and made, confirmed or recognized by the Government shall be null and void.” Proviso clause states that “Provided that any transaction of the nature of aforesaid Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 2024(not being a gift) may be sanctioned by the Government as being necessary or beneficial to the institution.”12.Therefore, the main ingredient under Section 41 of the HR & CE Act would be that any lease cannot be granted beyond 5 years and any such transaction must be for the benefit of the religious institution. Thus, the alienation of property by the petitioner and his family members for their possession and personal use is null and void under Section 41 of the HR & CE Act. 13.As stated above, the HR & CE Act will prevail over the Act 30 of 1963, since the subject property is admittedly a temple property stands in the name of the deity. More so, it is admittedly a service inam. Therefore, the family members of the petitioner are entitled for usufructuary benefits and cannot alienate the property. In the present case, continuance of service by the family members are disputed by the respondents. Further, the property had already been alienated. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri in granting Patta in the name of the Temple by conducting an enquiry under the Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 2024provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.14.The learned Single Judge has elaborately considered the scope of service inam under Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963. However, the admitted fact is that the subject property belongs to the temple. Therefore, Section 41 of the HR & CE Act would apply and prevails over Act 30 of 1963. Under Section 41, the temple is empowered to resume the property by filing an appropriate application before the District Collector concerned. More so, the lease cannot be granted beyond the period of 5 years and in the present case, the alienation done by the petitioner and their family members are null and void under Section 41 of the Act.15. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the decision taken by the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition. However, this Court is inclined to apply Section 41 of the HR & CE Act in the present case since the property stands in the name of the Temple and admittedly a service inam land. For all these reasons, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the Temple administration has to utilize the Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 2024property for the benefit of the temple by scrupulously following the provisions of the HR & CE Act and the Rules famed thereunder. There shall be no order as to costs.[S.M.S.J.,] [C.S.N.J.,]12.09.2025 Index:YesSpeaking Order:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NomsTo1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri Division, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 701.4.The Tahsildar, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 808.Page No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 20245.The Village Administrative Officer, Jakkasamudram Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District – 636 808.6.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.7.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Kottai Mariamman Temple, Salem – 636 001.8.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments, Dharmapuri – 636 701.9.The Executive Officer, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments, Palacode, Dharmapuri District – 636 808.10.The District Registrar, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 701.Page No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.389 of 2024S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.ANDC.SARAVANAN, J.ms W.A.No.389 of 2024andC.M.P.No.2596 of 2024 12.09.2025Page No.12 of 12

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under CE Act 1959