SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL Vs. ARULMIGHU THIRURNALESWARASWAMY DEITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, on a reference under Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, in L. A. 0. P. No. 16 of 1978. Claimants I to 6 are the appellants.

(2.) An extent of 1.78 acres comprised in S. F. No. 88 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a Depot for Cholan Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre. There was a reference under Section 18 which was also disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge in L. A. 0. P. No. 15 of 1978, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,0001per acre. Since there was a dispute relating to the title, the matter was also referred to the learned Subordinate Judge under S. 31, land Acquisition Act.

(3.) The said S. F. No. 88 measuring 1.78 acres and another extent of 1.96 acres comprised in S. F. No. 735 were the subject matter of an inam grant. The case of claimants 1 to 6 was that the grant was a personal grant to the Gurukkal of Thirumaleeswarswami Temple at Thirumanilayur, hounded with the condition of services to the temple. They also claimed that they and their predecessors-intitle had been in possession and enjoyment, doing the services in the temple. This inam was notified and taken over as a minor inam under the TamilNadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act 30 of 1963). l) The suo motu enquiry held by the Settlement Tahsildar III (S. E.) - Tiruchirappalii, a ryotwari patta was issued to claimants I to 6 under S. 8 (2) of Act 30 of 1963. The Land also stood registered at the time of acquisition in the Permanent Land Register and other records of the Government in the name of claimants I to 6. The said claimants further contended that in view of the patta issued under Section 8 (2) (ii) in their favour, it is not open to the Civil Court to go into the question of title afresh and decide whether the grant was in favour of the temple or it is a Personal grant burdened with service. They also contend ed that the temple is estopped by the principle of res judicata, from claiming that any portion of the compensation amount is due to them in view of the decision of the Settlement Tahsildar, holding that they are entitled to a ryotwari Patta and also in view of the prior proceedings in 0. P. NO. 12 of 1939, 0. P. No. 99/42 and 0. P. No. 104 of 1942. According to these claimants, the title of the temple had been found against in these proceedings