Madras High Court
Sudheswaran vs The District Collector on 12 September, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
W.A.No.389 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Writ Appeal No.389 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.2596 of 2024
Sudheswaran ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 705.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 705.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri Division,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 701.
4.The Tahsildar,
Palacode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 808.
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
W.A.No.389 of 2024
5.The Village Administrative Officer,
Jakkasamudram Village,
Palacode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District – 636 808.
6.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments,
Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
7.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Kottai Mariamman Temple,
Salem – 636 001.
8.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments,
Dharmapuri – 636 701.
9.The Executive Officer,
Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments,
Palacode, Dharmapuri District – 636 808.
10.The District Registrar,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 701. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 06.06.2022 in W.P.No.6440 of 2022.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Umashankar
For R1 to R5 : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan
Additional Government Pleader
Page No.2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
W.A.No.389 of 2024
For R6 to R9 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)
For R10 : Mr.U.Baranidharan
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM)
This writ appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 06.06.2022
passed in W.P.No.6440 of 2022.
2. The Writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The Writ Petition
was filed challenging the order of the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri
dated 11.01.2022, to conduct re-survey and issue Patta in the name of
Arulmigu Athinarayanaswamy Temple, at Jakkasamudram Village,
Dharmapuri District.
3. The application submitted by the Competent Authority under the
Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959 for UDR Patta had been entertained by the
District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri. The District Revenue Officer has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
conducted an enquiry and granted Patta in the name of the subject temple.
The said order came to be challenged in the writ proceedings. Since the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition, the present writ appeal
came to be filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr.C.Umashankar would
submit that as per the order of the Settlement Officer dated 01.06.1968, the
great grand father of the petitioner Thiru.Ramanuja Iyer was performing Puja
and Patta was granted under Section 8(3)(ii) r/w Section 20 (1) (2) and (3) of
Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1963.
5. The order passed by the Settlement Officer relied upon by the
appellant would reveal that the appellant, his father and grand father were in
continuous possession of the subject property and they have rendered Puja
services to the temple namely, Athinarayanaswamy Temple and are willing
to continue the performance of Puja services, to hold the suit land
permanently. Relying on the said statement, the Settlement Officer has passed
the order, in exercise of the powers delegated in G.O.No.401/Revenue, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
18.08.1965. Accordingly, the subject land was granted in the name of
Thiru.Ramanuja Iyer and Thiru.Duraisamy Iyer and consequently, Ryotwari
Patta was granted under Act 30 of 1963.
6. Mr.C.Umashankar, would further submit that they are
performing puja and in occupation of the subject property and subsequently
sold the property in favour of third parties, in order to meet out their personal
and family expenditures and to lead their livelihood.
7. Sale of temple property has not been disputed between the
parties. Learned Single Judge considered Section 21 of the Act 30 of 1963
but long possession of the family members of the petitioner and performing
pujas continuously are not considered and dismissed the writ petition.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant would rely on Section 21 of
T.N.Act 30 of 1963 and states that the appellant is continuously performing
the puja services to Athinarayanasamy Temple. Therefore, the order of the
Settlement Officer assisted by their possession would be sufficient to grant
the relief. The District Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
application for grant of UDR Patta. Thus, the impugned order which was
under challenge in the writ proceedings is to be set aside.
9. Learned Special Government Pleader Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
appearing on behalf of the HR & CE Department would oppose by stating
that right to alienate the temple property has not been conferred on the
petitioner or his ancestors in order dated 01.06.1968 by the Settlement
Officer. Therefore, the alienation of property made by the petitioner is null
and void in view of Section 41 of the HR & CE Act. When the entire
transaction between the petitioner and third parties found to be null and void
and the UDR Patta granted in the name of the temple is in consonance with
the provisions of the Act. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly
dismissed the writ petition.
10. Considering the arguments as advanced between the appellant
and the respondents to the lis on hand, Act 30 of 1963, as far as the facts in
the present case are concerned is a general Act. Act 30 of 1963 defines
“Inam” means (i) a grant of melvaram in any inam land; or (ii) a grant of both
the melvaram and the kudivaram in any inam land; which grant has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
made, confirmed or recognised by the Government. Section 21 deals with
“Service Inams”. As far as the temple properties are concerned, the
provisions of the HR & CE Act would be applicable, since it is a special Act.
When the Special Act provides dealing of Inam lands and its resumption, the
general Act cannot be applied. Section 34 of the HR & CE Act deals with
alienation of immovable property. Sub-Section (1) states that “Any exchange,
sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any
immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of,
any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the
commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution”
11. Section 41 provides resumption and re-grant of inam granted for
performance of any charity or service. Sub-Section (1) denotes that “Any
exchange, gift, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years
of the whole or any portion of any inam granted for the support of
maintenance of a religious institution or for the performance of a charity or
service connected therewith or of any other religious charity and made,
confirmed or recognized by the Government shall be null and void.” Proviso
clause states that “Provided that any transaction of the nature of aforesaid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
(not being a gift) may be sanctioned by the Government as being necessary or
beneficial to the institution.”
12. Therefore, the main ingredient under Section 41 of the HR & CE
Act would be that any lease cannot be granted beyond 5 years and any such
transaction must be for the benefit of the religious institution. Thus, the
alienation of property by the petitioner and his family members for their
possession and personal use is null and void under Section 41 of the HR &
CE Act.
13. As stated above, the HR & CE Act will prevail over the Act 30
of 1963, since the subject property is admittedly a temple property stands in
the name of the deity. More so, it is admittedly a service inam. Therefore, the
family members of the petitioner are entitled for usufructuary benefits and
cannot alienate the property. In the present case, continuance of service by
the family members are disputed by the respondents. Further, the property
had already been alienated. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in
respect of the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri in
granting Patta in the name of the Temple by conducting an enquiry under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983.
14. The learned Single Judge has elaborately considered the scope of
service inam under Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963. However, the admitted fact
is that the subject property belongs to the temple. Therefore, Section 41 of
the HR & CE Act would apply and prevails over Act 30 of 1963. Under
Section 41, the temple is empowered to resume the property by filing an
appropriate application before the District Collector concerned. More so, the
lease cannot be granted beyond the period of 5 years and in the present case,
the alienation done by the petitioner and their family members are null and
void under Section 41 of the Act.
15. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the
decision taken by the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition.
However, this Court is inclined to apply Section 41 of the HR & CE Act in
the present case since the property stands in the name of the Temple and
admittedly a service inam land. For all these reasons, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. It is made clear that the Temple administration has to utilize the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
property for the benefit of the temple by scrupulously following the
provisions of the HR & CE Act and the Rules famed thereunder. There shall
be no order as to costs.
[S.M.S.J.,] [C.S.N.J.,]
12.09.2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
ms
To
1.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 705.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 705.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri Division,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 701.
4.The Tahsildar,
Palacode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 808.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
5.The Village Administrative Officer,
Jakkasamudram Village,
Palacode Taluk,
Dharmapuri District – 636 808.
6.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments,
Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
7.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Kottai Mariamman Temple,
Salem – 636 001.
8.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments,
Dharmapuri – 636 701.
9.The Executive Officer,
Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowments,
Palacode, Dharmapuri District – 636 808.
10.The District Registrar,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri – 636 701.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
C.SARAVANAN, J.
ms
and
12.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 04:46:15 pm )
