GANAPATHI PANDARAM Vs. COLLECTOR OF COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the hereditary trustees and poojaries of the Velloi Vinayagar temple of Puliampati, Palladam taluk, Coimbatore Dt. for the issue of a writ of certiorari to remove the order passed by the District Collector on 14-2-1957 in R. Dis. No. 30402/56 to the file of the court and to quash the said order.

(2.) S. No. 50 in Puliampatti village known as Andikadu has been granted as Devadayam inam by a King of Mysore for the support of Pagoda of Vellai Vinayagar. At the time of the Inam Commission proceedings, Poojari Pangi Andi was in possession of the inam. The Inam Commissioner confirmed the inam permanently to the Pagoda so long as it was well kept up and issued on 19-121863 inam title deed No. 1076 in the name of Pangi Andi, Poojari of the temple. In 1956 the land was in the possession of respondents 4 and 5. The Sub Collector of Pollachi, exercising the powers of Collector under Section 35(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1951) initiated proceedings suo motu for resumption of the land. Notice was issued (1) to the authorities constituted under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act having jurisdiction over the area, (2) to the persons who were at that time poojaries and trustees of the temple and (3) to respondents 4 and 5. The fifth respondent filed a written statement that she found that the land was inam land granted for the service of pooja in the temple and that she had no objection to the land being resumed and re- granted. The fourth respondent filed a statement of objections making the following allegations. The inam land, namely, S. No. 50, belonged to his ancestors and had been in the possession of the family for about 150 years. The 5th respondent was his great grandfather's brother's grandson's wife. His branch of the family was entitled to half share in the land, and her branch of the family to the other half. He was in separate possession of a half of the land about 5 1/2 acres in extent, as full owner and she was in possession , of the other half of the land. The members of the family had never paid any quit rent or jodi nor had they paid any rent to the authorities of the temple. On those allegations, he pleaded that he was the owner of the land in his possession and that, at any rate, he had acquired title to that land by adverse possession on the part of himself and his predecessors-in-title.

(3.) The Sub Collector (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) after enquiry held that the land was Devadayam inam land granted to the poojari of Vellai Vinayagar temple for doing pooja in the temple; that the respondents were In possession and enjoyment of the land; that they have not shown cause against resumption of the inam land; that Chinna Andi and Ganapathi Pandaram were the grandsons of Pongiandi in whose name title deed 1076 was issued on 1912-1863 and that they were the poojaries of the temple at the time of the order. On those findings, the Collector ordered resumption of the inam land and regrant of it to Chinna Andi Pandaram and Ganapathi Pandaram, who were trustees and Poojaries of the temple, for the performance of pooja in the temple.