MAHALINGASWAMI DEVASTHANAM THIRUVIDAIMARUTHUR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Mahalingaswami Devasthanam, Thiruvidaimaruthur and sri Manokianathaswami Devasthanam, Thiruneelakudi, it is said are registered holders of the lands in villages going by the names Manjamalli, Thiruneelakkudi and Thiru-vidaimaruthur in Thanjavur District. The Tamil Nadu Levy of Ryotwari assessment on Free-hold Lands Act, 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1973-for short' 'the act' ')came into force with effect from 16. 10. 1979. The Assistant Settlement Officer, thanjavur, pursuant to the salient provisions adumbrated in the said Act, issued notices Nos. 66, 75 and 79, dated 18. 6. 1984 to the aforesaid devast-hanams, relatable to their holdings of the registered lands respectively in the villages of Manjamalli, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thiruneelakkudi, as respects determination of the question of issuance of a rough patta and rates of assessment imposable on such holdings at a ryotwari settlement. The devasthanams resorted to the present action under Art. 226 of the Constitution impleading the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George , Madras-9 and the assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur as respondents praying for issue of writ of certiorari to quash those impugned notices.

(2.) MANIFOLD grounds, though taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inclusive of the grounds relatable to the constitutional vires of the Act XXXI of 1973, yet during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners thought fit to abandon all those grounds-specifically the grounds relatable to the challenge made as to the constitutional vires of the Act XXXI of 1973 and the right of the government to determine the question of rates and assessments imposable on the holdings of the petitioners at a ryotwari settlement-and was rest content to vehemently put forth his submission revolving on the question of determination of the issuance 6f rough patta to the occupier of the lands by stating that such a question is beyond the pale of the provisions of the said Act and consequently, any action taken therefor by the Government is without jurisdiction and therefore, it goes without saying that the impugned notices deserve to be quashed, in so far as they relate to determination of the question of issuance of a rough patta to the occupier of the lands.

(3.) HAVING understood the nature and character of Mohini inam holdings of the petitioncrs-Devasthanams, the question that now falls for consideration is whether the Government under the Act XXXI of 1973 is entitled to determine the ques-tion of issuance of rough patta to occupier of lands.