Ryotwari patta for religious institutions: amended law exempted temples from proving personal cultivation and rebutted the landholder's claim.
The amended Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act exempted religious institutions from proving personal cultivation for ryotwari patta under Section 9(2)(a), because the proviso was intended to remove the hardship faced by temples and similar institutions under the HR & CE regime. The absence of a matching change in the definition clause did not defeat that exemption. Section 65 raised only a rebuttable presumption that the land was ryoti land, and the revenue and tenancy records, showing the temple as pattadar and the appellant as tenant, rebutted any contrary claim to independent kudivaram rights. The statutory scheme therefore supported the temple's entitlement to patta.
Issues: (i) Whether, after the amendment made by Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1966, a religious institution claiming ryotwari patta for private land under Section 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 was required to prove personal cultivation for the statutory period. (ii) Whether the statutory presumption under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 stood rebutted on the evidence so as to sustain the grant of ryotwari patta to the temple.
Issue (i): Whether, after the amendment made by Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1966, a religious institution claiming ryotwari patta for private land under Section 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 was required to prove personal cultivation for the statutory period.
Analysis: The amendment introduced a special proviso in Section 9(2)(a) for landholders other than religious institutions and the Statement of Objects and Reasons showed that the legislative purpose was to relieve temples and other religious institutions from the hardship of proving personal cultivation, since such institutions were restricted from carrying on pannai cultivation under the HR & CE regime. The exemption operated in the granting provision itself and was not defeated by the absence of a corresponding amendment in the definition clause.
Conclusion: The temple was not required to prove personal cultivation for the prescribed period, and the amendment validly exempted it from that requirement.
Issue (ii): Whether the statutory presumption under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 stood rebutted on the evidence so as to sustain the grant of ryotwari patta to the temple.
Analysis: Section 65 raises only a rebuttable presumption that land is ryoti land. The records and tenancy materials showed the temple as pattadar and the appellant as a tenant, while the appellant failed to prove kudikani or kudivaram rights. Once the temple was statutorily exempted from proving personal cultivation, the presumption was displaced by the evidence and by the amended statutory scheme.
Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the grant of ryotwari patta to the temple was justified.
Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme, as amended, entitled the temple to ryotwari patta and negatived the appellant's claim of independent kudivaram rights; the appeal therefore failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly exempts religious institutions from proving personal cultivation for grant of ryotwari patta, that exemption operates in the granting provision itself and is sufficient to rebut the general presumption against private land when supported by the surrounding revenue and tenancy records.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
