Madras High Court
R.Janarthanan vs The Commissioner on 18 March, 2026
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Pronounced on
12.03.2026 18.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO. 14318 OF 2023
AND
W.M.P. NOS. 13830 & 13831 OF 2023
R.Janarthanan .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept.
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.
2. Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept.
Tirupur.
3. Inspector
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept.
Palladam. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Na.Ka.
No.5883/2022/A1 dated 01.02.2023 on the file of the 2 nd respondent and quash
the same as illegal, arbitrary and manifestly erroneous.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
For Petitioner : Mr. V.Raghavachari, SC, for
Mr. Vishnu V.R.
For Respondents : Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan,
Spl. (GP) – HR & CE
ORDER
The order of the 2nd respondent, through which direction was issued to
transfer the land in the name of the temple and also for incorporating the name
of the temple in the patta for the purpose of leasing out the land for the benefit
of the temple is put in issue before this Court through the present petition.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition could be
briefly summarised thus :-
Sri Varadharajaperumal Temple at Periyavalavadi is an ancient temple
which consists of hereditary trusteeship and pujariship. The ancestors of the
petitioners and, thereafter, the petitioners have been holding the post of
hereditary trusteeship and pujariship since time immemorial. As back as memory
could delve in, the ancestors of the petitioners were holding the post of
hereditary trusteeship and pujariship of the temple. The family tree of the
petitioner and their ancestors is given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
3. The lands, which are the subject matter of the present petition, are
inam lands, which finds place in the Inam Fair Register of the year 1863 and the
said lands were granted Devadhayam inam lands to the temple and recorded in
the Inam Fair Register. One Sami Iyer, who is the ancestor of the petitioner, was
acting as the hereditary trustee-cum-pujari of the temple till his death in the year
1883. The hereditary trusteeship and pujariship flowed through the family of the
ancestors of the petitioner and finally landed at the hands of the petitioner.
4. The temple is situated in S. No.120/A3 in Periyavalavadi which is a
natham poramboke and is classified as Temple Poramboke. The temple was
endowed with Devadayam inam lands comprised in T.D. No.156 in Periavalavadi
village. It is the averment of the petitioner that the income from the abovesaid
lands comes to about Rs.750/- per annum and the Settlement Tahsildar granted
patta for the said lands in favour of the deity represented by its hereditary
trustees, viz., Venkatramana Iyer, Soundaram and Savithiri. By means of a
registered document dated 18.08.1958, the legal heirs divided their right to
perform pooja. It is the further averment of the petitioner that he has a vested
right to perform pooja to the deity and the benefits derived out of the said lands
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
are used in the performance of the pooja, while holding the hereditary
trusteeship of the temple, as it has been held by the family members of the
petitioner time immemorial.
5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that application was filed
before the Settlement Tahsildar way back on 26.7.1968 and an order had come to
be passed, after examination of oral and documentary evidence and ryotwari
patta was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner and their ancestors being the
hereditary trustee and also performing pooja of the temple, are entitled to hold
the lands and utilise the income generated from the lands for the performance of
pooja for the temple on the basis of the ryotwari patta granted to them.
6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that on 29.11.2022, the 3 rd
respondent had threatened to bring the property, which was granted as inam to
the petitioner and his family for auction. Due to the said act, the petitioner
approached the police authorities on 22.12.2022 and the District Revenue Officer
has passed an order directing removal of the pipelines on the land of the
petitioner. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 1 st and 2nd
respondents were put on notice and the Commissioner had directed the Joine
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
commissioner to enquire into the said allegations and complaints and file a
report. However, in the interregnum, the 2 nd respondent declared the lands held
by the petitioner as inam lands and issued a letter dated 1.2.2023 treating the
lands fit for auction for the benefit of the temple against which an appeal was
filed before the Joint Commissioner, but no order has been passed on the same
till date.
7. It is the further averment of the petitioner that while being so, through
letter dated 28.02.2023, the petitioner were called upon to convert the patta in
favour of the temple in order to facilitate the auctioning of the lands for the
benefit of the temple by way of lease. It is the averment of the petitioner that
no one outside the family of the petitioner has ever functioned as poojari or
trustee of the temple at any point of time and the two offices in question had
always been vested in the family and it was continued through an unbroken line
of succession, which is based on documents running over several decades.
Therefore, the conclusion of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has no
hereditary right of trusteeship is grossly erroneous. Vide the impugned order,
the 2nd respondent had sought for change in the name in the patta from the Late
father of the petitioner to that of the temple so as to lease the lands by way of
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
public auction, which is beyond the power conferred upon the said authority u/s
54 of the HR & CE Act and, therefore, the impugned order is ultra vires.
Therefore, left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the present writ
petition has been filed.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his usual
eloquence, submitted that the order passed by the 2 nd respondent is manifestly
illegal, erroneous and arbitrary and reveals total non-application of mind to the
materials.
9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that when an
application is filed u/s 54 of the HR & CE Act, a duty is cast on the authority to
recognize the successors as hereditary trustee and not following the said
mandate renders the order passed illegal and perverse.
10. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the
documents, which have been filed by the petitioners clearly proves that the
ancestors of the petitioner have been holding the post of hereditary trusteeship
and the same has been carried over very many decades and the family of the
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
petitioner alone was holding the post of hereditary trustee and also managing
the temple and were discharging the works of poojari in the temple and without
recognizing the said facts and the documents on record the respondents have
passed the impugned order, which is patently illegal, erroneous and arbitrary.
11. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that there is
no embargo for holding the post of hereditary trusteeship and poojariship with
the very same individual so long as the patta granted in respect of the lands and
the amounts generated from the lands are utilized for the benefit of the temple.
Therefore, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel that merely because
the patta for the lands stands in the name of the hereditary trustee representing
the temple, calling upon the hereditary trustees to change the same in the name
of the temple is totally uncalled for.
12. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the
reason that patta is sought to be changed in the name of the temple is nothing
but for the purpose of unjust enrichment and it is therefore an infringement of
constitutional right to hold the property as enshrined under Article 300-A of the
Constitution.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
13. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the
impugned order is a nullity as the order does not fall within the scope and ambit
of Section 54 (3) of the HR & CE Act, which is a pre-condition for an appeal to the
Commissioner and there is stark violation of principles of natural justice. The
impugned order smacks arbitrariness and is devoid of merits and causes immense
prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and, therefore, the same deserves
interference at the hands of this Court.
14. Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that an extent of 10.01.00 Hectares (approximately 24.72 acres) in
Periyavalavadi Village are classified as Devadayam Inam lands. It is the further
submission of the learned standing counsel that the Settlement Tahsildar had
granted ryotwari patta in the name of the deity on 26.7.1968 and not in favour of
the individual/petitioner. It is further submitted that even the Survey
Resettlement Register of the year 1912 confirms that the land was settled in the
name of the temple and recorded as “Service Manyam” or “Service Inam”.
Therefore, it is only when the poojari does service for the temple, it could be
enjoyed by the poojari for rendering service to the temple.
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
15. It is the further submission of the learned standing counsel that the
contention on behalf of the petitioner that the lands were given as personal
service inam is factually incorrect and even the patta granted in favour of the
deity by the Settlement Tahsildar would stand testimony for the same.
16. It is the further submission of the learned standing counsel that based
on the complaints received and upon obtaining a report regarding administrative
lapses and that the lands settled in favour of the deity were not used for the
betterment and upkeep of the temple, the impugned order had come to be
passed directing the hereditary trustees to bring the temple lands for public
auction so as to ensure that proper revenue is generated for discharging the day
to-day activities of the temple and that the said direction is in compliance of
Section 34 of the HR & CE Act.
17. It is the further submission of the learned standing counsel that the
records with regard to the income generated from out of the lands, which were
settled in favour of the temple were not properly maintained and further the
petitioner and other trustees refused to implement the public auction and
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
continued to claim the temple lands as their own, their action is against the
interests of the temple, as the lands were given for performance of service to the
temple and to be utilized for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple.
18. It is the further submission of the learned standing counsel that due to
the act of the petitioner, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 53 (4) of the HR &
CE Act, the hereditary trustees, including the petitioners were temporarily
suspended and a Fit Person was appointed to manage the affairs of the temple,
including land leasing process. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present
petition.
19. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned standing counsel
placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in Idol of Sri
Renganathaswamy rep. by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner – Vs –
P.K.Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam, & Ors. (2020 (17) SCC 96).
20. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
21. Before proceeding to analyse the case, certain undisputed facts, which
have been pleaded by the petitioner requires to be summarised :-
i) The ancestors of the petitioner and, thereafter, the
petitioner, since 1863 have been acting as the
hereditary trustee of the temple;
ii) Parallelly the ancestors of the petitioner and,
thereafter, the petitioner, since 1863, have been
performing the duty of poojari in the said temple;
iii) In the year 1968, vide proceedings of the Settlement
Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam, ryotwari patta was
granted in respect of the said lands, which are in
possession of the petitioner; and
iv) Vide order dated 19.08.1978, the Deputy
Commissioner of HR & CE, in O.A. No.40/1978 had
recognized the hereditary trusteeship of the
petitioner and their ancestors.
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
22. The above facts, which have been pleaded by the petitioner, have not
been disputed by the respondents. The impugned order had come to be issued
on the ground that the petitioner and through his ancestors claim that they are
the hereditary trustee of the said temple, nevertheless claim that they are
holding the lands as ‘service manyam’, which has since been negatived through
the aforesaid impugned order holding that the lands belong to the temple and
that the said lands are not ‘service manyam’.
23. Therefore, the basic determination which this Court is required to
make is whether the said lands is ‘service inam’ as provided for under Section 21
of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
(for short ‘Act, 1963’) so as to enable the petitioner claim that the lands have
been granted as ‘service manyam’ so as to attract the character of ‘service inam’.
For better appreciation, the said provision is quoted hereunder :-
“21. Service inams. – (1) The provisions of this section shall
apply in respect of any minor inam which was held
immediately before the appointed day by an individual
(hereinafter referred to in this section as the service-holder) on
condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or
charitable institution.
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023(2) The service-holder shall, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (3), be bound to continue to render the service
after the appointed day.
(3) (i) Where a service-holder is entitled to a ryotwari patta
under section 8 in respect of any land, he shall have the
option-
(a) either to pay to the religious institution the amount
specified in subsection (4) and on such payment the land shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (7), be
discharged from the condition of the service; or
(b) to hold the land and continue to render service subject
to the provisions contained in sub-sections (1), (2), (6) and (7).
(ii) The option referred to in clause (i) shall be 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.
(5) Where the service-holder has exercised his option to
pay the amount specified in sub-section (4), the tasdik
allowance referred to in sub-section (6) in respect of the period
subsequent to the date of the exercise of such option shall be
the absolute property of the institution and the institution shall
be at liberty to make such arrangements as it thinks fit for the
performance of the service.
(6) (a) For so long as the service-holder renders the service,
the institution shall pay to the service-holder the tasdik
allowance paid by the Government under section 20.
(b) If the service-holder fails to render the service, the
prescribed officer shall, after such inquiry and after such notice
13https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023to the service-holder as may be prescribed in this behalf, notify
such failure in such manner as may be prescribed. He shall
then declare that the tasdik allowance payable to the
institution in respect of the period subsequent to the failure
shall be the absolute property of the institution and the
institution shall be at liberty to make such arrangement as it
thinks fit for the performance of the service.
(7) (a) For so long as the service-holder renders the service,
he shall be entitled to occupy permanently the lands in respect
of which he is entitled to a patta under section 8, subject
however, to the payment of the assessment fixed [under
section 16 or section 16-A, as the case may be], in respect of
such lands.
(b) If the service-holder fails to render the service, the
prescribed officer shall, after such inquiry and after such notice
to the service-holder as may be prescribed in this behalf, notify
such failure in such manner as may be prescribed. He shall
then declare that the service-holder’s right to occupy
permanently the land under clause (a) shall cease and
determine, and the institution shall be at liberty to make such
arrangement as it thinks fit for the performance of the service
and shall be entitled to hold the land as its absolute property
subject, however, to the payment of the assessment fixed
therefor [under section 16 or section 16-A, as the case may
be].
Explanation I. – For the purposes of this section, –
(i) service-holder includes his heirs;
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
(ii) non-performance of the service due to illness or other
temporary disability shall not be deemed to be failure to
render service, provided that the service-holder makes
alternative arrangements for rendering the service during the
period of such illness or of other temporary disability.
Explanation II. – For the purposes of sub-section (4), “land
revenue” means the ryotwari assessment including the
additional assessment, water-cess and additional water-cess.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. From the above provision, it is abundantly clear that in respect of
service inams, for the purpose of discharge from the condition of service, either
the amount towards the land as specified in sub-section 3 (i) (a) should be paid
else the pattadar should continue to hold the land and do service as per the
condition prescribed under sub-section 3 (i) (b).
25. From the above, it is visibly clear that only persons doing service to the
deity could hold the lands till such time they perform service to the deity and not
otherwise. However, what is material to be noted in the present case is that the
petitioner, as also their ancestors, claim that they not only acted as poojari, but
were also hereditary trustee of the temple. Therefore, the main issue which has
to be decided by this Court is whether the very same person could continue both
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
as poojari as also the hereditary trustee of a temple and hold the lands with a
ryotwari patta.
26. In Seshammal and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1972 (2) SCC 11), the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had delineated the distinction between
trustee and poojari and the position both hold with regard to the deity to which
service is performed and in that context, held thus :-
“5. Power to make rules was given to Government by Section
116(2)(xxiii) and it was open to the Government to make rules
providing for the qualifications to be possessed by the Officers and
servants for appointment to non-hereditary offices in religious
institutions, the qualifications to be possessed by hereditary servants
for succession to office and the conditions of service of all such
officers and servants. Under this rule making power the State
Government made the Madras Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers
and Servants) Service Rules, 1964. Under these rules an Archaka or
Pujari of the deity came under the definition of ‘Ulthurai servant’.
‘Ulthurai servant’ is defined as a servant whose duties relate mainly
to the performance of rendering assistance in the performance of
pujari, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of
mantras, vedas, prabandas, thevarams and similar invocations and
the performance of duties connected with such performance of
recitation. Rule 12 provided that every ‘ulthurai servant’, whether
hereditary of non-hereditary whose duty it is to perform pujari and
recite mantras, vedas, prabandams, thevarams and other
invocations shall, before succeeding, or appointment to an office,16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023obtain a certificate of fitness for performing his office, from the head
of an institution, imparting instructions in Agamas and ritualistic
matters and recognised by the Commissioner, by general or special
order or from the head of a math recognised by the Commissioner,
by general of special order, of such other person as may be
designated by the Commissioner, from time to tone, for the purpose.
By this rule the proper worship in the temple was secured whether
the Archaka or Pujari was a hereditary Archaka or Pujari or not.
Section 107 of the Act emphasized that nothing contained in the Act
shall, save as otherwise provided in Section 106 and in Clause 2 of
Article 25 of the Constitution, be deemed to confer any power or
impose any duty in contravention of the rights conferred on any
religious denomination or any section thereof by Article 26 of the
Constitution. Section 106 deals with the removal of discrimination in
the matter of distribution of prasadam of theertham to the Hindu
worshippers. That was a reform in the right direction and there is no
challenge to it. The Act as a whole, it is conceded, did not interfere
with the religious usages and practices of the temples.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
27. From the above, it is clearly evident that a poojari is a servant of the
deity and whose duties relate mainly to the performance of rendering assistance
in the performance of pooja, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation
of mantras, vedas, prabandas, thevarams and similar invocations and the
performance of duties connected with such performance of recitation.
Therefore, such of those persons, who render service to the deity, lands which
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
fall under service inams as codified u/s 21 of the Act, are held by such of those
poojari while discharging the duties of poojari, but mainly for the benefit of the
deity.
28. However, when the petitioner and his ancestors claim to be the poojari
of the temple and performing poojas, parallelly it is claimed that they are also the
hereditary trustees of the temple. It is to be pointed out that trustee is a
dominant position and it is only the trustee, who appoint the poojari, who are
servants of the deity. Further, the duty of the trustee is to administer the affairs
of the temple in accordance with terms of the trust or the usage of the
institution, would control the appointment of the Archaka to be made by him
under the amended Section 55 of the HR & CE Act and, therefore, the trustee and
poojari cannot be one and the same person, as the trustee, being of a dominant
position, cannot appoint himself as poojari of the temple, as such use of powers
would be nothing but misuse and abdication of the position entrusted with the
trustee. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner and his
ancestors are holding the whip as trustee and also unleashing it as poojari cannot
be countenanced, as it would be against the framework of the HR & CE Act and
also the ratio laid down in Seshammal case (supra). Therefore, the claim made
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
by the petitioner for continuance as trustee in the dominating role and poojari in
the submissive role cannot be permitted.
29. Now the only issue that remains consideration of this Court is as to the
character of the inam lands. Ryotwari patta is granted upon determination of
lands in respect of which any person is entitled to ryotwari patta. Section 11 of
the Act, 1963, spells out the manner in which ryotwari patta is to be granted and
for better understanding, the same is quoted hereunder :-
“11. Determination of lands in respect of which any
person is entitled to ryotwari patta.
(1) The Assistant Settlement Officer shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (2), inquire into the claims of any
person for a ryotwari patta under this Act in respect of any
inam land and decide in respect of which land the claim should
be allowed.
(2)(a) Before holding the enquiry under sub-section (1), the
Assistant Settlement Officer shall give notice in the prescribed
manner to the inamdar and to the Tahsildar of the taluk or
Deputy Tahsildar of the sub-taluk the inam land is situated;
and
(i) if the person in occupation of the land is not the
inamdar, to the occupant;
(ii) if the inam has been granted for the benefit of a Hindu
religious institution or for service therein, to the Commissioner19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023appointed under the [Tamil Nadu] Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [Tamil Nadu Act 22 of
1958], or to an officer specified by the said Board in this
behalf.
(iii) if the inam is a wakf within the meaning of the [Wakf
Act, 1954 (Central Act XXIX of 1954)] (Central Act 43 of 1995),
to the Board of Wakfs constituted under the Act, or to an
officer specified by the said Board in this behalf;
(iv) [to such other persons as may be specified in the rules
made by the Government in this behalf.]
(b) The Assistant Settlement Officer shall also publish in the
prescribed manner in the village the notice referred to in
clause (a) and after giving the parties who appear before him
an opportunity to be heard and to adduce their evidence, give
his decision.
(3) Against a decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer
under sub-section (2), the Government may, within one year
from the date of the decision, and any person aggrieved by
such decision may, within three months of the said date,
appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow
further time not exceeding two months for the filing of any
such appeal:
Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its discretion,
entertain an appeal by the Government at any time if it
appears to the Tribunal that the decision of the Assistant
Settlement Officer was vitiated by fraud or by mistake of fact.”20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
30. Clause (i) of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 11 relates to grant of ryotwari
patta in respect of land, which is in occupation of a person, who is not an inamdar
and clause (ii) of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 11 relates to grant of ryotwari patta
for the benefit of a Hindu religious institution or for service therein, which would
be to the Commissioner appointed therein or to the officer specified by the
Commissioner. From the above, there are two distinct entities, viz., one in which
the inam is granted to the occupant and the other is to the Hindu religious
charitable institution or for the service therein.
31. In the present case, the petitioner and his ancestors are not the
occupants of the land and, therefore, clause (i) of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 11
does not stand attracted. In this backdrop, the applicability of clause (ii) and
whether the inam has been granted to the Hindu religious institution or for
service therein has to be elicited, which could be referable to the ryotwari patta,
which has been granted. Therefore, for better appreciation, the ryotwari patta
dated 26.7.1968, which has been granted in respect of the lands in issue, requires
to be adverted to, which is extracted hereunder :-
“The lands mentioned in the schedule given below situated
in Periavalavadi village and comprised in T.D.No.14 156 are
devadayam minor inam lands. These lands were granted as21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023manibam for the maintenance of Varadarajaperumal Temple
at Periavalavadi village. The inam tenure of these lands stands
abolished consequent on the publication of the Madras Minor
Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963.
K.V.Venkataranana Iyer and others have preferred their claims
for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of these lands.
Enquiry was fax conducted under section 11 of the Madras
Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963,
after due publication and service of notices in the prescribed
manner as required by the rules.
2. Venkataramana lyer was examined as P.W.1. He
deposed that the lands mentioned in the schedule below were
granted as manibam to Veradarajaperumal Temple, that he
and co-sharers V.K. Ramanuja Iyer, Sundaram, Savithri are
hereditary trustees and poosaris of the temple, that they are in
possession of the said lands and managing the temple
hereditarily and that ryotwari patta may be granted in the
name of the temple nominating them as trustees-cum-
poosaris. The Karnam of the village was examined as C.W.1.
He supported the version of P.W.1 and deposed that the
temple is in good condition in Periavulavadi village.
R.Rangasamy, Settlement Inspector was examined as C.W.1.
He filed the extract of Huzur Inam Register pertaining to
T.D.No.156 (Ex.C.1).
3. It is seen from the entries in the extract of Huzur Inam
Register pertaining T.D.No.156 (Ex:01) that these lands were
granted as manibam to Varadarajaperumal Temple at
Periavalavadi. Therefore, the kudivaram right vests in the
22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
temple. P.W.1 has no objection for the grant of ryotwari patta
in the name of the temple. No objections were received. No
portion of the lands in question has been set apart for the
common use of the villagers. I, therefore, allow ryotwari patta
in respect of the lands mentioned in the schedule given below
to the religious institution mentioned therein under section
8(2)(11) read with section 11 of the Madras Minor Inam
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.”
32. From the above, it is evident that the inam lands were devadayam
lands and the lands were granted as manibam for maintenance of the temple.
The ancestor of the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1, had stated that he
along with other co-shares are in possession of the said lands and managing the
temple and that ryotwari patta may be granted in favour of the temple. The
Karnam, who was examined as C.W.1 has also supported the version of P.W.1.
Based on the said deposition and that the lands having been granted as manibam
to the temple and that kudivaram rights vests in the temple, ryotwari patta was
granted in favour of the temple.
33. The aforesaid fact clearly establishes that the lands are given as
maniyam only to the temple and not to any individual. In fact, there is no service
rights as claimed by the petitioner to the poojari, as the patta had only been
23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
granted in the name of the temple and not in the name of the poojari and,
therefore, the said inam is not a service inam as defined u/s 21 of Act, 1963.
Therefore, no right over the said lands could be claimed by the petitioner or his
ancestors as the lands are strictly for the use of the temple alone and not to any
individual in respect of any service rendered by the individual to the deity.
34. In this background, reference could be had to Section 11 (2)(a)(ii) of
Act, 1963, which deals with lands in respect of which any person is entitled to
ryotwari patta. In clause (ii) of sub-section (2)(a) therein, there is a clear mandate
that where the inam has been granted for the benefit of a Hindu religious
institution or for service therein, the ryotwari patta is to be given in the name of
the Commissioner of any officer specified by the Commissioner as appointed
under the HR & CE Act. Therefore, for all purposes, the patta granted to the
temple could be held only to be patta granted in favour of the Commissioner or
the officer appointed by the Commissioner, so long as it is not a service inam.
35. In the present case, this Court has already held that there is no service
inam as could be evidenced through the materials as even according to the
petitioner, the petitioner as well as his ancestors were acting as hereditary
24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
trustees of the temple and such being the case, they being in a higher
denomination, cannot act as poojari of the temple as the trustee is entrusted
with the power of appointing the poojari and, therefore, the trustee himself
cannot perform the duties of poojari and, therefore, the trustees would not be
entitled for service inam, which could only be granted to the poojari.
36. It is to be pointed out that that in their explanation to the 2 nd
respondent, the petitioner had claimed the said lands to be service maniyam,
which has been granted to his ancestors and that they have been enjoying the
said lands. However, the ryotwari patta dated 26.7.1968 gives a different
indicator that the said lands have been granted for the benefit of the temple,
which has been recorded on the basis of the deposition of P.W.1 and C.W.1 of
which P.W.1 is the ancestor of the petitioner and such being the case, the claim
of the petitioner that the lands were granted as service inam is wholly
misconceived and erroneous and the same does not merit acceptance.
37. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Palaniappa
Pandaram & Ors. – Vs – Special Commissioner & Commissioner Land
25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
Administration & Ors. (1996 (1) CTC 217 (DB)), would be of relevance to the
present case, wherein, it has been held thus :-
“4. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. The order of
the learned single Judge is as well merited one not warranting
any interference. As noticed by the learned single Judge, the
statutory Authority has issued a ryotwari patta under a special
enactment in favour of the deity. The nature of the grant
which has been confirmed also is in favour of the temple. The
proceedings by which the patta was issued in favour of the
deity was subject to a statutory right of appeal before the
concerned Sub Court constituted as a tribunal and thereafter a
further appeal to a Division Bench of this Court and subject to
such remedies as noticed above, the other granting patta is
rendered final under the statute. Of course, this Court as well
as the Apex Court have declared the position that even
thereafter, the parties are at liberty to vindicate their
respective claims before a civil court, if they so desire. So far as
the facts on hand before us are concerned, the order granting
patta in 1969 in favour of the deity remains in full force and
effect and has not been also challenged. If that be the position,
it was most improper on the part of the appellants who claim
to be pujaris/service holders and also on the part of the
Tahsildar, to order for the transfer of patta in favour of the
appellants relying upon a provision which in our view, is totally
irrelevant. Section 21 of the Act has relevance only to service
inams and the grant, of the patta in the name of the deity and
for the support of the Pagoda cannot be said to be a service26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023inam. If the inam is really a service inam, Patta would have
been granted only in favour of the service holders subject to
the condition of performance of the service. It is only in such
cases, there is scope for having recourse to Section 21 and not
a case like the one concerned before us.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
38. In the present case, if really the inam was a service inam, then patta
would have been granted in favour of the individual, but herein, the ryotwari
patta has been granted in favour of the deity/temple. Further, even before the
Settlement Tahsildar during grant of ryotwari patta, it is not the case of the
petitioner or his ancestors that they were doing service to the deity. It has been
the deposition of P.W.1 that they are the hereditary trustees of the temple and
such being the case, the question of the petitioner or his ancestors holding
service inam does not arise, as they are not in the position of rendering service;
rather they are holding the higher denomination of trustees, who have the power
to appoint poojaris to do service.
39. Therefore, once it is held that the petitioner and his ancestors have
been the hereditary trustees of the temple, they would not be entitled to any
ryotwari patta as they were not the person in occupation of the said lands.
27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
Further, the lands have been granted as inam for the benefit of the temple,
which has been admitted by the petitioner before the Settlement Tahsildar and,
therefore, ryotwari patta could only be granted in favour of the Commissioner or
the officer authorised by the Commissioner u/s 11 (2)(a)(ii) of Act, 1963. In such
circumstances, the 2nd respondent had rightly called upon the petitioner to
change the patta in the name of the temple, as the inam was granted to the
temple and not to the individual. In such view of the matter, the order of the 2 nd
respondent directing the change of patta in the name of the temple cannot be
said to be erroneous and, in fact, it is the duty of the 2 nd respondent to put the
lands to best use for the purpose for realising the benefits for the deity.
40. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of the 2 nd respondent, impugned
herein requires no interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, this writ
petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
18.03.2026
Index : Yes / No
GLN
28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
To
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept.
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.
2. Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept.
Tirupur.
3. Inspector
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Dept.
Palladam.
29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.14318/2023
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P. NO. 14318 OF 2023
Pronounced on
18.03.2026
30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
