VAIYAPURI PARADESI ANNADHANA CHATRAM AND DHARMASTHAPANAM BY FIT PERSON T.V. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDIAR Vs. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, LAND REFORMS, CUDDALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is an institution called Vaiyapuri Paradesi Annadana Chatram and Dharmasthananam situate in Nellikuppam, South Arcot Dt. On the ground that the said institution is only of a charitable nature and not of a public religious character, its ceiling area has been fixed at five standard acres under S.5(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act 58 of 1961. The petitioner -institution has an extent of 55.61 acres equivalent to 27.35 standard acres. Having regard to the fact that the ceiling area for a public charitable nature five standard acres, an extent of 22.35 standard acres had been treated as surplus, and the institution has been asked to surrender the said extent as surplus lands.

(2.) The claim put forward by the institution was two fold. Firstly, it contended that it is a public trust of a religious nature and therefore, it is entitled to be exempted from the provisions of S.2 of Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961. Secondly, even assuming that the trust, as originally created by the founder, was only a charitable trust, as a result of the Government notifying the same under S.3 of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, it should be taken to be a religious institution. These contentions having been rejected and the petitioner having been held to be entitled to hold only five standard acres as a public charitable institution, he filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal questioning the decision of the Authorised Officer. The Tribunal also agreed with the view of the Authorised Officer and held that the institution is only of a charitable nature and not a public trust of a religious nature so as to get the benefit of exemption from the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Before me Mr. P. S. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that though the documents under which the petitioner -trust has been created proceeds on the basis that it is purely of a charitable nature, still, having regard to the fact that the charity to be performed under the document is more or less in the precincts of the temple, it should be taken to be a religious trust. I have perused the document, dated 8th April 1897, Ex. A -1, under which the trust has been created. The document says that certain properties have been purchased from public subscription and they have been endowed for the purpose of performing annadana dharmam, that is, feeding of the poor, in a place which is situate just opposite to Sri Prasanna Venkatachalapathi temple. The document also provides for the method of selection of trustees and for the due administration of the said trust. But, the document does not say that the poor feeding, which is the sole object of the trust, should be conducted in connection with any festival in the temple or that it is confined only to the worshippers in the temple? The poor feeding contemplated under the document does not have any connection with the temple or the festivals conducted therein. Therefore, the charity referred to in the document is unconnected with the temple and its affairs. Therefore, it is clear that the trust as created under the original document, Ex. A -1, dated 8th April, 1897, is purely of a charitable nature. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the poor feeding is done is a place just in front of the temple it will make a purely charitable trust into a religious and charitable trust. To make a charitable trust a religious trust as well, it must be shown that the object of the trust had some nexus or connection with the temple or its affairs or the worship or the conduct of the festivals therein. As already stated, the document of trust does not restrict the poor feeding either to the worshippers or to the persons who resort to the temple for worship. Nor is it restricted to any festival or religious function offered in the temple. The authorities below have, therefore, come to the right conclusion that the trust in this case, as originally created, was only of a charitable nature and not a religious trust of public nature.