M KALYANASUNDARAM Vs. BHAKTHALALITHEESWARAR TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of dismissal, dated 06. 03. 2000, made in W. P. No. 530 of 1992, passed by the learned single Judge, this writ appeal has been preferred by the petitioner therein. The writ petition had been filed seeking an order of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Proceedings of the fifth respondent in Na. Ka. No. D3/59208/90, dated 23. 05. 1991, confirming the order passed by the fourth respondent in Na. Ka. No. 19118/85/a10, dated 22. 05. 1987 and the original order of the third respondent in Tho. Mu. Va. No. 544/85/a4, dated 30. 09. 85.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that Pudukottai Samasthanam was merged with Union Terriroty of India in the year 1948 and accordingly, Sri Bhakthalalitheeswarar Temple, Alangudi, one among the Temples under Administration of Pudukottai Devasthanam, came under the control of the District Collector, Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu State. As per the settlement proceedings, initiated, settlement Tahsildar conducted enquiry under Section 11 of The Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abol. and Con. Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, (herein after referred to as the Act), with regard to claims made by persons for Riathwari patta under the Act in respect of the inam lands. The land in question, bearing S. No. 60/3. 4 and 5 and 98/6 in Ambukovil Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District was treated as inam lands in the settlement proceedings. While so, on the request of one Smt. Anjugathammal, before the Settlement Officer, service inam patta was granted in the name of the appellant / petitioner, after the death of her husband, Lavanathar, to do pathali job (store keeping) in the Temple. The Settlement Officer after conducting enquiry had issued Riathwari service Inam patta under Section 11 of the Act 30 of 1963 in the name of the appellant / petitioner herein, by his Proceedings under the Act in No. 30/63/a8/487/68, dated 21. 08. 1968. The petitioner's father, Ondimuthu Pillai, as guardian was performing the duty of pathali job in the temple, since the appellant / petitioner was a minor, at that time.

(3.) IN the counter filed by the first respondent in the writ petition, it has been admitted that the service inam patta was granted in the name of the petitioner, who was a minor represented by his father and guardian Ondimuthu Pillai. The first respondent has further stated in the counter that Ondimuthu Pillai was subsequently removed from service and the second respondent was appointed to the Office of the Temple and hence, it was addressed to the Settlement authorities by the first respondent for cancelling the patta already issued in the name of the petitioner and for re-grant the same in the name of the second respondent, since he was rendering the said service to the temple, in the place of Ondimuthu Pillai.