TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms temple's land rights, rejecting appellant's claim. Religious institutions exempt from personal cultivation proof.</h1> <h3>DEVADOSS (DEAD) LRS. Versus VEERA MAKALI AMMAN KOIL ATHALUR</h3> DEVADOSS (DEAD) LRS. Versus VEERA MAKALI AMMAN KOIL ATHALUR - 1998 AIR 750, 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 282, 1998 (9) SCC 286, 1997 (10) JT 70, 1997 (7) SCALE 532 Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to Ryotwari Patta under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.2. Proof of Kudikani or Kudivaram Rights.3. Exemption from Proving Personal Cultivation for Religious Institutions.4. Application of Statutory Presumption under Section 65 of the 1963 Act.5. Interpretation of Amendments by T.N. Act 27/1966.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Ryotwari Patta under Section 9 of the 1963 Act:The primary tribunal granted ryotwari patta to the respondent temple under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, confirming the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The appellant claimed ryotwari patta based on Kudikani or kudivaram rights but failed to provide sufficient evidence. The appellate tribunal and the High Court upheld this decision, affirming that the temple had iruvaram rights and the appellant was merely a tenant.2. Proof of Kudikani or Kudivaram Rights:The appellant claimed kudikani rights, stating he cultivated the land under the Grow More Food Scheme and spent Rs. 5,000 to bring the rocky and waste land under cultivation. However, he admitted having no documents to prove these rights, and the evidence showed the land belonged to the temple. The High Court held that the appellant had no evidence to prove kudikani rights, and the records indicated he was only a cultivating tenant.3. Exemption from Proving Personal Cultivation for Religious Institutions:The primary tribunal and the appellate tribunal relied on the exemption provided by T.N. Act 27/1966, which exempted religious institutions from proving personal cultivation for obtaining ryotwari patta. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the exemption applied to the respondent temple, thus negating the need for the temple to prove personal cultivation for three years before 1.4.1960.4. Application of Statutory Presumption under Section 65 of the 1963 Act:The appellant invoked the statutory presumption under Section 65, which presumes land to be ryoti unless proven otherwise. However, the tribunals and the High Court found that the presumption was rebutted by the evidence showing the land was private land belonging to the temple. The exemption under T.N. Act 27/1966 further supported this conclusion.5. Interpretation of Amendments by T.N. Act 27/1966:The High Court and the Supreme Court interpreted the amendments by T.N. Act 27/1966 as effectively exempting religious institutions from the requirement of proving personal cultivation for the grant of ryotwari patta. The Supreme Court referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, which highlighted the undue hardship faced by religious institutions due to restrictions on pannai cultivation under the Madras HR & CE Act, 1959. The court concluded that the legislative intent was to provide relief to religious institutions by exempting them from proving personal cultivation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the tribunals and the High Court, affirming the grant of ryotwari patta to the respondent temple and treating the appellant as an ordinary cultivating tenant. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
TaxTMI 