SRI TRIVIKRAMA RAMANANDA BHARATISWAMI, SRI SIDDHESWARI PEETADHIPATI AND ORS. Vs. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the validity of the Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966 (hereinafter called the order) and the legality of the action taken by the authorities purporting to act under the order. As all these petitions raise the same question, they may be dealt with together.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 2671 of 1966 is filed by the Jeer of Vanamamalai Mutt for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to release 1,338 bags of paddy and restraining the authorities from selling 414 bags of paddy which had been seized from the Petitioner. Sri Vanamamalai Mutt, Nanguneri is an ancient mutt owning extensive lands in Nanguneri taluk and in other places. The income in a normal year from the lands belonging to the mutt in Nanguneri taluk is about 2,500 kottahs of paddy. From the other villages, the paddy income will be about 600 kottahs. The mutt used to store the paddy in two granaries. The normal annual requirement of the mutt is about 2,000 kottahs of paddy. The balance of paddy was being sold by the mutt in open market.

(3.) In April, 1966, after the Pishanam harvest, the mutt had in its Nanguneri granary about 2.828 kottahs of paddy, out of which a total quantity of 900 kottahs (1,800 bags) were measured for the procurement up to 30th September 1966. From the paddy collected from the other fields, a total quantity of 723 kottahs were measured to the Government. On 1st October 1966 the mutt gave a declaration that they had a stock of 1,373 kottahs of paddy. On 15th October 1966 the stock of paddy was 1,315 kottahs. On that date, a notice was served on the Petitioner calling upon him to surrender 1,634 bags of paddy within three days. On behalf of the mutt, a petition was filed requesting the District Revenue Officer to permit the mutt to retain paddy for its requirements. While so, on 18th October 1966 the authorities sealed the granaries of the mutt, and till now they have refused to give any access to the granaries to the Petitioner. The District Revenue Officer in response to the request by the mutt to allow the required quantity for the consumption of the mutt, directed on 23rd October 1966 that the mutt would be allowed to have 1,338 bags and will measure out the excess paddy to the Government. While so, the tahsildar and the taluk supply officer broke open the locks and removed paddy forcibly in several lorries with the help of the police. The Petitioner's request that they may be permitted to retain 1,338 bags as per the order of the District Revenue Officer was not heeded to. The Petitioner challenges the validity of the acts of the tahsildar and the taluk supply officer and submits that the whole proceedings are illegal and unwarranted in law. He prays for appropriate relief.