ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEESversusNALLAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

                   [2011] 12 S.C.R. 627


  ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE,                    A
   REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES
                             v.
        NALLAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No.3537 of 2002)
                  SEPTEMBER 13, 2011                         B

    [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

    Tamil Nadu .Minor lnams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, 1963:                                         c
    Object of the Act - Discussed.

      ss.2(5), 8 - Lands in question notified as minor lnam
lands under the Act - The lnams held not only by the
appellant- Temple but also by other four temples and these D
particulars reflected in the lnam settlement proceedings and
title deeds issued to the grantees - Whether proceedings can
be taken for issue of Ryotwari patta under the Act - Held:
Once the lands are notified as minor lnam lands under the
Act, the same is binding on the authorities constituted under E
the Act and they cannot go beyond the Act and decide the
character of the lands, namely, whether the lands are minor
lnam lands or not - Proceedings can be taken for issue of
Ryotwari patta under the Act.
                                                             F
    Words and phrases: lnam, lnam lands, Melvaram,
Kudiwaram - Meaning of.

    The question which arose for consideration in the
instant appeal was whether the lands in question situated
in Komarapatayam Agraharam hamlet were not minor G
inam lands and, therefore, they were not liable to be
resumed and converted into Ryotwari lands after the
commencement of the Tamil Nadu Minor lnams (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.
                         627                              H
      628      SUPREME COURT REPORTS .          [2011] 12 $.C.R.


A           Dismissing the appeal, the Court

           HELD: 1. The Tamil Nadu Minor lnams (Abolition and
      Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 was enacted to
      provide for the acquisition of the rights of lnamdars in
      minor lnams in the State of Tamil Nadu and the
8
      introduction of Ryotwari settlement in such lnams. By
      virtue of Section 2(5), "lnam" means (i) a grant of the
      melvaram in any inam land; or (ii) a grant of both the
      melvaram and the kudiwaram in any inam land which
      grant has been made, confirmed or recognized by the
C     Government. The expression "Malevarm" referred to in
      Section 2(5) means the share of the produce due to the
      landlord and the expression "Kudiwaram" means the
      cultivator's share of the produce. Chapter Ill of the Act
      deals with "Grant of Ryotwari Pattas". Section 8 deals
D     with grant of Ryotwari Pattas. In terms of Section 8, any
      person claiming to be entitled to Kudiwaram right has to
      prove the .same by virtue of any grant in his favour or in
      favour of his predecessors-in-interest and the Kudiwaram
      interest being a peculiar concept, depending upon the
E     status and grant only, could not be claimed to have been
      acquired by mere possession or cultivation of lands for
      any length of time. Such rights as an ordinary cultivating
      tenant, have got to be asserted or sustained or
      substantiated under the ordinary tenancy law. [Paras 6,
F     7) [633-H; 634-A-C-E-G]

       2. It was not in dispute that in respect of suit lands,
  the lnam grant was confirmed by the British Government
  and title deed was also issued in favour of the appellant-
G Temple by the lnam Commissioner. Inasmuch as the
  lands were Minor Inam lands, they were notified and taken
  over by the Tamil Nadu Government under 1963 Act,
  therefore, patta proceedings were initiated under the said
  Act and the Assistant Settlement Officer granted Ryotwari
  Patta in favour of the appellant-Temple at Komarapalyam
1-f
 ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS 629
 CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL (D) THR. LRS.

 in respect of Survey Nos. 2/1, 2/2, 3/1 and 3/3 and A
 classified Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track Poramboke. [Para
 8] [635-C-D]

     K.M. Sengoda Goundar & Ors. v. State of Madras & Anr.
 (1973) 2 SCC 662; Sellappa Goundan & Ors. v. Bhaskaran
 & Ors. (1960) 2 MLJ 363 -Distinguished.                   B

        3. It is clear that these lnams were held not only by
   the appellant-Temple but also by other four temples and ·
   these particulars were reflected in the lnam settlement
   proceedings and title deeds were .issued to those c
   grantees. The extracts from the Fair lnam Register, clearly
   supported the stand of the respondents. Once the lands
   are notified as minor lnam lands under 1963 Act, the same
   is binding on the authorities constituted under the Act.
   Thereafter, they cannot go beyond the Act and decide the 0
.. character of the lands, namely, whether the lands are
   minor lnam lands or not. The impugned order passed by
   the High Court is upheld. In as much as the High Court
   remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the case
   on merits, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same E
   as directed by the High Court. [Paras 11-13] [638-A-E]
                     Case Law Reference:
     (1973) 2 sec 662        referred to         Paras 2, 4
     (1960) 2 MLJ 363        relied on           Para 4       F

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 3537 of 2002.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 09.10.2000 of High
 Court of Judicature at Madras in S.T.A. No. 12 of 1996. G
     R. Venkataramani, K. Ramamoorthy, R. Sundravardhan, L.
 Dakshinamurhty, Alto K. Joseph, R. Nedumaran, A.T.M.
 Sampath, T.S. Shanthi, P. Siva Kumar, Ram Pal Roy, ftN.
 Keshwani for the appearing parties.                        H
    630       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P. SATHASIVAM,J. 1. This appeal is filed against the final
    judgment and order dated 09.10.2000 passed by the High
    Court of Judicature at Madras in S.T.A. No. 12 of 1996 whereby
B   the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed
    by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment and order
    dated 15.07.1996 passed by the Minor lnams Abolition Tribunal
    (Subordinate Judge), Salem (hereinafter referred to as "the
    Tribunal") in M.l.A. No. 1 of 1993 in favour of the appellant-
    Temple herein.
c
          2. Brief facts:

         (a) According to the appellant-Temple, in the year 1760,
    Krishna Raja Udayar, the Rajah of Mysore, granted the village
D   of Jagadapady or Nattapatti together with 12 hamlets, to certain
    Brahmins. Komarapalayam was one of the 12 hamlets. The
    grant, however, was not by way of gift of either the land or any
    portion of the assessment thereon. A number of Brahmins
    subscribed and collected a sum of Rs.50,000/- "Rajagopala
E   Pagodas". Four of them, who represented the others as well,
    paid the amount into the treasury and obtained a grant of
    Jagadapady and 12 hamlets rent free from the ruler. When
    Tippu Sultan came to power, he resumed six of the 12 hamlets,
    allowing the successors of the original grantees to remain in
    possession of the rest without any obligation to pay any rent
F   on that portion of the village. On the assumption of sovereignty
    by the British, Captain Macleod confirmed the title on the
    successors of the grantees in regard to the lands in their
    possession. During the enquiry by the lnam Commission, it was
    found that the inam was enjoyed in 110 vritties, however, only
G   persons holding 90 vritties appeared and filed statements and
    there was no claim for about 20 vritties. The lnam
    Commissioner confirmed the inam on 26.01.1863 subject to
    an assessment of Rs. 566-11-3 in addition to the quit rent of
    Rs. 299-12-0 and Title Deed No. 1164 was issued in the name
H   of the appellant-Temple.
ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS 631
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL (D) THR. LRS.
                 [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     (b) When the Madras lnam Estates (Abolition and                A
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act No. 26 of 1963) was
enacted, the aggrieved parties challenged the validity of the
Notification issued by the State Government by filing a writ
petition before the High Court on the ground that
Komarapalayam hamlet is not an inam and,_ therefore the             B
Notification has no application to that hamlet. They also
challenged the validity of the aforesaid Act. The High Court, by
order dated 24.06.1966, upheld the validity of the Act. On
appeal, this Court, by judgment dated 17.08.1973, confirmed
the decision of the High Court in K.M. Sengoda Goundar &            c
Ors. vs. State of Madras & Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 662.

      (c) However, suo motu proceedings were taken by the
Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem under the Tamil Nadu Minor
lnams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act
No. 30 of 1963) (in short "Act No. 30 of 1963"), on the ground      D
that the lands in question situated in Komarapalayam
Agraharam hamlet are minor inam lands and, therefore, they
are liable to be resumed and converted into Ryotwari lands after
the commencement of Act No. 30 of 1963. The Assistant
Settlement Officer, by order dated 20.04.1981, granted              E
Ryotwari Patta in favour of the appellant-Temple for Survey Nos.
2/1, 2/2, 3/1 and 3/3 and classified Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track
Poramboke.

      (d) Against the said classification, the appellant-Temple     F
filed M.l.A. No. 27 of 1981 before the Tribunal and the other
claimants - respondents herein filed M.l.A. Nos. 29-31 and 35
of 1981. By order dated 21.10.1982, the Tribunal allowed all
the appeals and remanded the matter to the Assistant
Settlement Officer for fresh disposal.                              G

    (e) Against the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant-
Temple filed S.T.A. Nos. 34-37 of 1983 before the High Court.
The High Court, vide order dated 17.08.1988, dismissed the
appeals. In the meanwhile, portion of Survey Nos. 3/1 and 3/3
was acquired by the State Government under the Land                 H
    632      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A Acquisition Act for Municipal Shandy and compensation amount
  was deposited in the Court by the Land Acquisition Officer by
  his award being L.A. No. 2 of 1983 dated 01.07 .1983.

       (f) Remand Enquiry was taken up by the Assistant
  Settlement Officer, Dharapuram in S.R. No.4/90 and by order
8
  dated 16.10.1992, the patta was granted in favour of the
  Temple in ~espect of all the lands except Survey No. 3/1A in
  favour of the respondents. The other lands in Survey Nos. 3/
  1B and 3/3 were registered in the name of the Municipality.

C      (g) Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Settlement
  Officer granting patta in respect of Survey No. 3/1A in favour
  of the respondents, the appellant-Temple preferred an appeal
  before the Tribunal in M.l.A. No.1 of 1993. The Tribunal, by
  order dated 15.07.1996, allowed the appeal and set aside the
D order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram.
       (h) Against the said order of the Tribunal, respondent Nos.
  1-4 preferred an appeal being S.T.A. No. 12 of 1996 before
  the High Court of Madras. The Division Bench of the High Court,
E by impugned judgment dated 09.10.2000, allowed the appeal
  and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remanded
  the matter to the Tribunal to decide the case on merits.

      (i) Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the
  appellant-Temple has preferred this appeal by way of special
F leave petition before this Court.

          3. Heard, Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel
    for the appellant-Temple and Mr. K. Ramamoorthy and Mr. R.
    Sundaravardhan, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
G Submissions:
      4. Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the
  appellant-Temple, after taking us through the order of the original
  authority-Assistant Settlement Officer, the Tribunal and the
H impugned order of the High Court submitted that the High Court
 ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAY~ASWAMY TEMPLE, REP BY ITS 633
 CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL {D) THR. LRS.
                      [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
has committed a grave error in not following the judgment of A
this Court in K.M. Sengoda Goundar (supra) wherein, this
Court, while dealing with the same Act, i.e., Act No. 30 of 1963
has categorically held that the entire Komarapalayam village in
which properties in question are situated is not an lnam village
as the original grant was made in consideration of payment of B
money by the grantees and, therefore, the grant was not an lnam
grant. He also submitted that the High Court is not correct in
law in reversing the order of the Tribunal holding that the Act
No. 30 of 1963 is not applicable to the properties in question.
On the other hand, Mr. K. Ramamoorthy and Mr. R.                  c
Sundaravardhan, learned senior counsel for the respondents
submitted that the Tribunal, by order dated 15.07 .1996
erroneously held that the lands are outside the purview of the
provisions of Act 30 of 1963 and, therefore, lands cannot be
subjected to the grant of Ryotwari Patta under the provisions
                                                                   0
of the said Act. On this sole ground, the order of the Assistant
Settlement Officer was set aside by the Tribunal. They further
submitted that the decisions in K.M. Sengoda Goundar (supra)
and Se/Jappa Goundan & Ors. vs. Bhaskaran & Ors., (1960)
2 MLJ 363, relied on by the appellant, are related only to the E
village of Komarapalayam Agraharam and not to the minor
lnam grants existing in the said village. They further highlighted
that these two decisions have nothing to do with the minor inam
grants that were in existence in Komarapalayam Agraharam
and notified under the Act No. 30 of 1963. They also submitted
that the impugned order of the High Court is in order and the F
matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal to decide the issue
on merits as directed by the High Court.

    5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the relevant materials.                                   G

     6. Though Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel has
highlighted certain provisions from the Madras Estates Land
Act, 1908 and the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, for the disposal of the      H
        634      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A       present appeal, we are concerned only with the Tamil Nadu Act
        No. 30 of 1963. The Act was enacted to provide for the
        acquisition of the rights of lnamdars in minor lnams in the State
        of Tamil Nadu and the introduction of Ryotwari settlement in
        such lnams. Relevant provisions of the said Act as mentioned
s       in Section 2 are as under:-

              "(5) "inam" means-

                    (i) a grant of the melvaram in any inam land; or

c                   (ii) a grant of both the melvaram and the kudiwaram
                    in any inam land which grant has been made,
                    confirmed or recognized by the Government.

              (6) "inamdar" in respect of any inam means the person
              who held the inam immediately before the appointed day;
D
              (7) "inam land" means any land comprised in a minor
              inain;"

              7. The expression "Malevarm" referred to in Section 2(5)
E       means the share of the produce due to the landlord and the
        expression "Kudiwaram" means the cultivator's share of the
        produce. Chapter Ill of the Act deals with "Grant of Ryotwari
        Pattas". Section 8 deals with grant of Ryotwari Pattas. In terms
        of Section 8, any person claiming to be entitled to Kudiwaram
F       right has to prove the same by virtue of any grant in his favour
        or in favour of his predecessors-in-interest and the Kudiwaram
        interest being a peculiar concept, depending upon the status
        and grant only, could not be claimed to have been acquired by
        mere possession or cultivation of lands for any length of time.
        Such rights as an ordinary cultivating tenant, have got to be
G       asserted or sustained or substantiated under the ordinary
        tenancy law. Inasmuch as further details are not required, there
        is no need to delve into other provisions of the Act.

            8. From the materials placed, it is seen that the following
H       lands were granted as "Devadayam lnam" in favour of the
    '
ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP BY ITS 635
 CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL (D) THR. LRS.
                     (P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
appellant-Temple""'in Komarapalayam village, Salem District,     A
Tamil Nadu:
    "S.No.                    Extent
    2/1                       0-51-0
    2/2                       1-41-5
    3/1                       3-92-5                             B
    3/3                       1-08-0
    3/2                       0-12-0"
It is also not in dispute that the lnam grant was confirmed by
the British Government and title deed was also issued in favour C
of the appellant-Temple by the lnam Commissioner. Inasmuch
as the lands were Minor lnam lands, they were notified and
taken over by the Tamil Nadu Government under Act 30 of 1963,
therefore, patta proceedings were initiated under the said Act
and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruchengodu, by order
dated 20.04.1981 granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of the D
appellant-Temple at Komarapalyam in respect of Survey Nos.
2/1, 2/2, 3/1 and 3/3 and classified Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track
Poramboke.

      9. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assistant E
Settlement Officer, the Temple filed an appeal to the Tribunal
being M.l.A. No. 27of1981 against the classification of Survey
No. 3/2 as Cart track and the respondents and other claimants
filed M. I.A. Nos. 29-31 and 35 of 1981 in respect of the first
four items mentioned above. By order dated 21.10.1982, the F
Tribunal allowed all the appeals and remanded the matter to
the Assistant Settlement Officer for fresh disposal. Against the
order of the Tribunal, the appellant-Temple filed S.T.A. Nos. 34-
37of1983 before the High Court. By order dated 17.08.1988,
the High Court dismissed those appeals and confirmed the G
order of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the portion of Survey
Nos. 3/1 and 3/3 was acquired by the Government under the
Land Acquisition Act for Municipal Shandy and compensation
amount was deposited in the Court by the Land Acquisition
Officer by his award being L.A. No. 2 of 1983 dated
01.07.1983.                                                       H
    636      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A         10. It is further seen that pursuant to the femand order by
    the Tribunal, fresh enquiry was taken up by the Assistant
    Settlement Officer, Dharapuram in SR No. 4 of 1990 and by
    order dated 16.10.1992, the patta was granted in favour of the
    appellant-Temple in respect of Survey Nos. 2/1, 2/2, 3/18 and
B   3/3, classifying Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track and also granted
    patta in respect of Survey No. 3/1A to an extent of 2-39-0
    hectares in favour of the respondents herein. The other lands
    in Survey Nos. 3/1 B and 3/3 were registered in the name of
    Municipality. It is brought to our notice by the learned senior
c   counsel for the respondents that up to this stage, the appellant-
    Temple never questioned about the character of the lands as
    minor lnam lands. However, the Temple filed an appeal before
    the Tribunal against the grant of Ryotwari Patta in favour of the
    respondents herein in respect of land in Survey No. 3/1A. It was
    highlighted that only in this appeal, for the first time, a contention
0
    was raised that the lands notified and taken over by the State
    Government are not minor lnam lands and no proceedings can
    be taken for issue of patta under this Act. In support of the
    above claim, they also relied on Sel/appa Goundan and
    Others (supra) and K. M. Sengoda Goundar (supra). It was the
E   stand of the appellant-Temple before the Tribunal that since the
    village Komarapalayam Agraharam is not an lnam estate as
    defined under the Act No. 26 of 1948 as decided in Sellappa
    Goundan (supra) and not an lnam within the meaning of Section
    2(4) or part of an lnam village within Section 2(11) of the Act
F   No. 26 of 1963, the lands notified under Act No. 30 of 1963
    cannot be notified as minor lnam lands and they cannot fall
    within the ambit of the said Act. While accepting the contention
    of the appellant-Temple, the Court held that the lands are outside
    the purview of the Act No. 30 of 1963 and, therefore, cannot
G   be subjected to grant of Ryotwari Patta. Only on this ground,
    the order of Assistant Settlement Officer was set aside. When
    this was challenged by way of Special Tribunal Appeal (STA)
    to the High Court, by impugned order dated 09.10.2000, the
    High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the
H   Tribunal.
ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP BY ITS 637
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL (D) THR. LRS.
                 [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
      11. Inasmuch as the learned senior counsel for the             A
appellant heavily relied on the above referred two decisions
stating that the lands are not minor lnam lands, we perused the
factual details, issues raised and ultimate conclusion in both the
decisions. In the first decision, namely, Sellappa Goundan
(supra), the question was whether the village Komarapalayam          B
Agraharam was an lnam estate coming within the purview of
Act No. 26of1948. In Komarapalayam Agraharam, there were
a number of minor lnam lands granted in favour of various
temples including the appellant-Temple which has been clearly
set out in the lnam Register. The decision in that case relates      c
only to the village Komarapalayam Agraharam and not to the
minor lnam grants existing in the said village. Even, in the
decision of this Court, namely, K. M. Sengoda Goundar (supra),
the question for consideration was whether the Komarapalayam
Agraharam village is an existing lnam estate or a part of village
                                                                     0
lnam estate within the meaning of Act No. 26of1963. On going·
through the entire decision and factual details, we agree with
the submission of the learned senior counsel for the
respondents and conclude that these two decisions have
nothing to do with the minor lnam grants that were in existence      E
in Komarapalayam Agraharam and notified under the Act No.
30 of 1963. In Sel/appa Goundan (supra}, there was a
reference to the lnam Register Extract which shows that there
were certain lnam lands in the Komarapalayam Agraharam
village. After extracting Column Nos. 11, 12 and 21 of the lnam
Register Extract describing the history of the grant, the Court      F
has concluded as under:

    "The lnam Register Extract shows that there were certain
    minor inams in the Komarapalayam village. Those inams
    were held by (1) Sri Damodaraswami temple (2) Sri G
    Kailasanathawami temple, (3) Sri Badrakali temple, (4) Sri
    Lakshminarayanaswami temple and (5) Sri Angaliamman
    temple. The minor inams were also confirmed at the inam
    settlement proceedings, and separate title-deeds were
    issued to the respective grantees. Exhibits A-2 to A-6 are H
    638       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A          the extracts from the Fair lnam Register relating to them."

    It is clear that these lnams were held not only by the appellant-
    Temple but also by other four temples and these particulars
    were reflected in the lnam settlement proceedings and title
    deeds were issued to those grantees. Exs. A2-A6 mentioned
8
    therein, which are extracts from the Fair lnam Register, clearly
    support the stand of the respondents.

          12. Once the lands are notified as minor lnam lands under
    Act No. 30 of 1963, the same is binding on the authorities
C   constituted under the Act. Thereafter, they cannot go beyond
    the Act and decide the character of the lands, namely, whether
    the lands are minor lnam lands or not. With these factual details,
    we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court,
    particularly, in para 5 of its order.
D
          13. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to
    accept the stand taken by the appellant-Temple and we fully
    agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. In view
    of the same, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of
E   any merit. Inasmuch as the High Court, by impugned order
    dated 09.10.2000, remanded the matter to the Tribunal to
    decide the case on merit, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of ·
    the same as directed by the High Court within a period of six
    months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after
    affording opportunity to all the parties concerned. The appeal
F   is dismissed with the above direction. However, there shall be
    no order as to costs.

    D.G.                                          Appeal dismissed.