A C CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the impugned proceedings dated 31.3.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai, two writ petitions have been filed. The first writ petition in W.P.No.13955 of 2010 has been filed by Mr.A.C.Chandrashekar, the trustee of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple Charitable Trust and the second writ petition in W.P.No.28718 of 2010 has been filed by the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Mathigiri Town Panchayat, Hosur Taluk challenging the above proceedings.

(2.) Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions contended that the land in Survey No.566 having an extent of 2.89 acres and the land in Survey No.692 having an extent of 0.32 acres originally belonged to Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Mathigiri Village. The said village being an inam village, the above lands were taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act No.30 of 1963) (for short "the Act''). Thereafter, the Settlement Tahsildar No.I, Salem, in his proceedings dated 30.7.68, granted ryotwari patta in the name of Mr.Venkatachari, S/o Venkatasaiah for the above lands as a service holder of the religious institution (Anjaneyaswamy Temple) at Chinnakoothur under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act, subject to the condition that he performs service to the temple as per the terms of the original grant. Adding further, the learned senior counsel submitted that after the demise of the said Mr.Venkatachari, his son Mr.Kesavamoorthy, the contesting respondent started alienating the property by way of executing a gift settlement deed dated 20.12.2004 in favour of his daughter Kalpavalli, on the premise that the said lands belonged to him ancestrally and the patta, which was standing in the name of his father, had been transferred to his name pursuant to the death of his father. The said transfer of patta is illegal, for the simple reason that the earlier patta was granted to the father of the contesting respondent only as a service holder of the temple. The contesting respondent has further wrongly settled the suit lands in the name of his family members, who in turn alienated the lands in favour of other persons. Thereafter, fraudulent documents were created in respect of the suit lands. Specifically speaking, one Kalpavalli had executed the sale deed dated 14.2.2006 in favour of four persons viz., Mr.KR.Sridhar and others, who had in turn by the sale deed dated 20.12.2006 sold the same to Mrs.Sowbhagyammal, W/o Abaresai Kesavamoorthy. Again the contesting respondent had gifted the property to one Sree Bharathi Anuman Charitable Koil Trust on 21.7.2004. Again he had cancelled the same on 25.1.2005. After cancellation, the contesting respondent had entered into an agreement with Bhaktha Hunuman Charitable Trust. In this limited period of three years, there were more than ten fraudulent documents created in respect of the suit lands in an effort to grab the same.

(3.) Continuing his arguments, the learned senior counsel stated that presently only the idol of Sri Anjaneyaswamy is standing and being worshipped by the villagers, however, irrespective of the sanctity and fear of god, the land grabbers are attempting to demolish the statue including the temple in order to lay house sites for sale. To achieve the said object, when they approached the lands with bulldozers, the public and the office bearers of the temple thwarted their attempt. In the meantime, one Mr.Muthuraj, Ward Member of Mathigiri village filed a public interest petition in W.P.No.2317 of 2008 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 29.1.2008, directed that if the lands had been identified to be encroached by several persons, it can be brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department for taking appropriate action. In this context, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dharmapuri, in his proceedings dated 17.3.2008, made complaints to the Sub Collector, Hosur that the suit lands were registered in the names of six persons and in the name of panchayat and requested the Sub Collector to cancel the allotments and register the lands in the name of the temple. On the basis of the complaint received from the Assistant Commissioner and on the basis of the report of the Sub Collector, Hosur dated 23.4.2008, the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri passed an order on 30.9.2008 holding that the lands belonging to the temple were wrongly registered in the name of the contesting respondent during the updating registry scheme, hence, the gifts and the sale documents executed by him and his family members were invalid. Aggrieved by the same, the contesting respondent filed a revision petition. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, by the impugned order, wrongly setting aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, ordered the registration of the lands in S.Nos.566 and 692 of Mathigiri village as per the orders of the Settlement Tahsildar No.I, Salem dated 30.7.68, on the ground that once the inam lands were taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act, the Settlement Tahsildar No.I, Salem has rightly allowed ryotwari patta in favour of Mr.Venkatachari, the father of the contesting respondent, as a service holder of the temple under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Act, subject to the condition that he performs service to the temple as per the terms of the original grant, therefore, if any one is aggrieved by the grant of ryotwari patta by the Settlement Tahsildar, an appeal against the decision made by the Settlement Tahsildar under Section 8 of the Act lies with the Inam Abolition Tribunal. Since no one including the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department appealed against the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, the said order has attained finality, hence, the District Revenue Officer had no power.