RANGASWAMY IYENGAR TRUST Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the deponent of the affidavit filed in suppott of the writ petition that his fore father one Rangaswamy Iyengar executed a Trust Deed on 5-121914 in and by which he created a Trust. According to the petitioner, a perusal of the Trust Deed will make it clear that the Trust is a public trust coming within the meaning of S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are directions in the Trust deed as to how the trust should be administered and as to bow the amounts should be spent for the temples and also for the Padasalai'. The administration of the truit is by the system of turn of trustees. The respondents have taken proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ?the Act? and have passed a final notification that an extent of about 95 standard acres should be declared as a surplus. IT is against this notification dated 24-7-1981, the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vedapatasala Trust, Sooramangalam by Trustee S. Guruswami Iyer and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Thanjavur and others 1 , fot the contention that a trust created for running a Vedapatasala will not come within the purview of the Act. In other words such trust will be exempted from the provisions of the Act.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is pointed out that at every stage of the proceedings, the trustees had not cared to file their objections or furnish a copy of the trust deed. It is not necessary for me to narrate here all the steps taken by the respondents before passing the final order. In fact, it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that the deponent of the affidavit himself was aware of the proceedings, but he did not take any care to appear for the inquiry or produce the trust deed. On behalf of the petitioner, it is explained that the trust deed was being administered by turn trustees and therefore for want of continuity in the office there might have been some lapse in not appearing before the Officer. Having regard to the categoric statement in the counter-affidavit of the respondents, I am not inclined to set aside any order at this stage. Therefore, the orders passed by the respondents in respect of the petitioner's trust will stand confirmed.