9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent in Roc. A3/31472/82, dated 10.2.1983 and that of the fourth respondent in H.S.D.A. No. 106/90 dated 16.5.1981 and quash the said proceedings. 3. Facts in short are as follows: Arulmighu Valmiganathasamy Temple, a temple attached to the petitioner Devasthanam, is situated in survey No. 82/1 of Thiruvettriyur village. Thiruvadanai Taluk. The lands belonging to the temple were however classified as natham in the village accounts. These lands originally belonged to the erstwhile Rajahs and Zamindars who gifted the lands to the temple. In Survey No. 82/1, there is a temple tank which according to the petitioner, was intended for the worshippers to make ablutions before entering into the temple for worship and cater to the needs of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny event since the land was in possession of the petitioner, it did not come under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 and never vested with the Government. The 5th respondent in each case was inducted as tenants by the petitioner and paid rents to the petitioner. They could not claim any settlement of such a land with themselves ignoring the rights of the petitioners and thus creating some sort of relationship of landlord and tenant between the Government on the one hand and themselves on the other. According to the respondents however since the lands were classified as Natham poramboke as result of the enforcement of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, all righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent officer as to whether lie is actually entitled to such patta; (ii) if such person is a landholder, pending the decision of the settlement officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, to it, as the whether he is actually entitled to such patta. 6. Although a counter affidavit has been filed by the joint commissioner II, Land Administration Department it is nowhere stated that on the promulgation of the Act in the year 1949, possession of the lands in dispute was taken by the State Government. It is not in dispute by the respondents that the petitioner exercised possession and continues to enjoy every right upon and in the land and in the enjoyment of such rights inducted the 5th respondent in each case as tenants and exercised construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y its President v. Sreenath Kagath Guru Renga Chariyar Guruvalaya Madalayam by its President 1980 T.L.N.J. 195, in which there are some observations with respect to the Natham Poramboke lands. The matter had come before the High Court from the suit instituted by Devasthanam for a declaration and injunction and for recovery of ₹ 360 being the arrears of rent. According to the Devasthanam, it owned amongst other properties the suit property which was situate adjacent to the pillayar Temple and was in the possession of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff-Devasthanam the first defendant Madalayam was constituted over a half a century ago as a subsidiary of the plaintiff-Devasthanam. In 1988 the first defendant wanted lands for raisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial Court. The first defendant in the suit preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 1 of 1975, Sub-court, Coimbatore. The learned subordinate judge however held that the plaintiff-Devasthanam had not succeeded in establishing its title and that the lease would not estop the first defendant from denying the title of the plaintiff. In the second appeal two contentions were raised: (i) Having regard to the principal of estoppel contained in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not open to the 1st defendant to set up title in a third party viz., the 2nd defendant in the suit, and (ii). In the absence of an appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 705 of 1973 by the 2nd defendant, the State of Tamil Nadu, it must be held that the adjudication by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdance with law and there is no plea that the true owner i.e., the Government evicted the 5th respondent and after evicting them, admitted them as tenants under it. It is a case, in my view, in which it should be clearly understood that the revenue authorities will have no right to adjudicate the dispute of title and if there is any claim for the Government that the property stood vested in it under the Act, it must get it adjudicated in accordance with law. So far as the plea of paramount title is concerned, that could be set up by the 5th respondent only in any action in court by the petitioner and not before the Revenue authorities. Nothing has been shown to me to accept the Revenue authorities who decided the dispute of title were compe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
