- (1.) An extent of 10. 38 acres of land, which was government land and situated around four temples, namely, Keelakottai sri. Vinayagar Temple, Muthampatti sri Vinayagar Temple, mottakottai Sri Vinayagar Temple and mariamman and Bhagavathiamman Temples were set apart by the British Government for the purpose of the use of its income for the poojas and maintenance of the temples. The land was put in the possession of one Veerana pandaram, who was the poojari. Respondent nos. 1 to 7 herein, the descendents of Veerana pandaram filed a petition before the Deputy commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments, Madurai, under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the 'h. R. and C. E. Act') praying that they may be declared as hereditary trustees cum poojaries of the Mariamman and Bhagavathiamman temples. This application was made, when after an enquiry, a preliminary report was made by the Special Inspector, to the Assistant commissioner of H. R. and C. E. Administration Department, madurai, to the effect that the lands endowed and belonging to the temples, are being enjoyed by the three poojaries, who render pooja services. The poojaries were taking the income, but were not maintaining any accounts. As various development works had to be done in the temple, the lands may be assessed to contribution from the concerned fasli. The Special Inspector also suggested that show cause notices be issued to the poojaries regarding the appointment of trustees for the temple. In their application, the successors of veerana Pandaram prayed in terms of Section 63 (b) of the H. R. and C. E. Act, that they and the three respondents to the said application, may be declared as hereditary trustees of both the temples, the office as hereditary and them as the trustees of Mariamman and bhagavathiamman Temples. By order dated 4.10. 1972, the Deputy Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. Department, declared that the applicants before him are holding the office of trusteeship cum poojariship of Mariamman and bhagavathiamman Temples at Keelakottai village, Dindigul taluk, Madurai district hereditarily. No declaration was given regarding the rights of the applicants, since no court fee was paid for the grant of such a relief. Thus, the successors of Veerana Pandaram were recognized as trustees of the temples. Subsequently, the settlement Tahsildar, Madurai passed an order on 31. 03.1968 for issue of ryotwari pattas for lands covered by four title deeds referred to in that order, in favour of the four institutions represented by respondent Nos. 1 to 7. The respondents appear to have belatedly challenged the said order before the Appellate tribunal. Neither the deity nor the H. R. and C. E. Department was impleaded in the appeal which was filed four years after the order of the settlement Tahsildar. That appeal is seen to have been allowed and the matter remitted for a fresh consideration by the Settlement tahsildar. It was noticed in the order of remand that the H. R. and C. E. Department was not impleaded, and that it was necessary to implead the Department for an effective adjudication. In spite of it, it is seen that the respondents did not bring on record the H. R. and C. E. Department or the deity in the array of parties, before the Settlement Tahsildar. The order does not also show that notice was issued either to the deity or to the Department. That no notice was issued is seen admitted by the respondents before the High Court of Madras in a revision filed by them against the order refusing to grant a stay pending a revision filed by them against the proposal to appoint a fit person under the h. R. and C. E. Act in their place. The said order of the High Court dated 7.6.2002 is annexed as Annexure P-11 and in paragraph 4 thereof, it is recorded by the learned Judge that:"the petitioners (the contesting respondents herein) would further submit that in none of the above referred proceedings, the H. R. and C. E. Authorities were the parties and that being so, on coming to know that the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- in the name of the four institutions, the second respondent (Joint Commissioner, h. R. and C. E. ) has initiated the proceedings in NK. No. 3369 of 2002/a1, dated 12.4.2002 against the petitioners on the ground that the sanction as prescribed under Section 34 of the Tamil nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act had not been obtained and by order dated 12.4.2002, the second respondent has suspended the petitioners and also directed them to hand over the charges to the third respondent. "thus, the mandate in the order of remand was not complied with either by the descendents of Veerana Pandaram or by the Settlement tahsildar.
(2.) Thereafter, it is seen that the Settlement tahsildar proceeded to uphold the claim of the successors of Veerana Pandaram. But the Settlement Tahsildar noticed that the claimants did not produce either the original grants or the extract of the Inam Fair Register, in spite of the reference to the four title deeds Nos. 1049, 1050, 1051 and 1052 said to be in favour of the four institutions represented through the claimants. He proceeded to hold that the claimants before him were eligible to get ryotwari patta subject to the condition of rendering service to the four institutions. Patta was thus granted subject to the conditions laid down in Section 21 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) act, 1963.
(3.) What requires to be emphasized once again, is that the Settlement Tahsildar did not see either the original grants in respect of the lands or the extract of the Inam Register, while directing the issue of the patta by changing the pattadar from the temples to the claimants and did not care to insist on the claimants impleading the deities and the H. R. and C. E. Department as respondents in the proceedings, in spite of the directions in that behalf contained in the order of remand. It was clearly a case of total non-application of mind by the settlement Tahsildar amounting to dereliction of duty. The patta thus granted by him cannot either affect the rights of the deities or of the temples and cannot bind them or the H. R. and c. E. Department. Nor can it affect the right of the worshiping public in these public temples.;