STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus HIS HOLINESS SRILLA SRI AMBALAVANA PANDARA SANNADHI ADHEENAKARTHA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 22-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
v. 
HIS HOLINESS SRILLA SRI AMBALAVANA PANDARA 
SANNADHI ADHEENAKARTHA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) 
Ac~ 1963/ Estate Land Act 1908 : 
Ss. 3(7), 3(13) 9 and 65/ ss. 3(1)(b), 3(15) and 185-"Inam es-
tate"-Tenants in cultivating possession orRe/igious Institution claiming 
ownership thereof-Both the religious institution and the tenants claiming for 
ryoti patta-Held, the suit land was an existing estate-Religious institution 
has converted the land by its conduct as a ryoti land and has given the land 
A 
B 
c 
on lease to the tenants and was collecting rent from them-Tenants became D 
ryots who ever since remained in possession as ryots and, therefore, are 
entitled to ryotwari patta-However, they are liable to maintain the Institution 
and the temple-Every tenant shall deliver to Adheenam every year three 
quintals of paddy per acre. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 39(b}-Material resources of community--Distribution 
of-Tenants in cultivating possession of Inam land-Held tenants are ti/lei~ 
of the soil dnd have fundamental right to economic empowerment under 
Article 39(b) which enjoins distribution of material resources to accord socio 
economic justice and means for development for social status and dignity of 
person. 
Article 136-Appeaf-Held, Supreme Court has power even to entertain 
an appeal against order of Tribunal which stood confirmed in the judgment 
E 
F 
of Special Tribunal. 
G 
T.S.Pl.P. Chidambaram Chettiar v. T.KB. Santhanaramaswami 
Odayar & Ors., (1968] 2 SCR 754 and Pollisetti Pullamma & Ors. v. Kalluri 
Rameswaramma & Ors., (1990] Snpp. 2 SCR 393, relied on. 
Periannan & Ors. v. Airabadeeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Kovi/ H 
161 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A of O'Sirnvayal by its trnstees MA.R. Periannan Chettiar & Ors., AIR (1952) 
Madras 323, held no longer a good law. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15523 of 
1996 Etc. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.88 of the Madras High 
Court in S.T.A. No. 8 of 1982. 
V. Krishnamurthy, (V. Ramasubramaniam) for Arputham, Aruna & 
Co. For the Appellant. 
C 
R. Sundervardan, S. Balakrishnan and Ms. Lily Thomas for the 
D 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Special 
Tribunal of Madras in S.T. Appeal No. 8of1982, dated November 15, 1988, 
by two learned Judges of the Madras high Court under the Tamil Nadu 
loam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 
E of 1963) (for short, the 'Act'). The admitted facts are that respondents 3 
to 438 are the cultivating tenants of the lands in Kodarangulam village, 
which is an estate under the Act. It was admittedly notified and taken over 
under the Act; as a result, the respondents as well as the first respondent 
came to file application under Section 9 of the Act for issuance of ryotwari 
patta. The Tribunal granted patta to the first respondent and on special 
F 
appeal, the High Court had confirmed the same. It would appear that some 
of the tenants had filed special leave petitions on earlier occasion also, but 
the same came to be summarily dismissed. The State has come up by 
special leave with permission against the judgment of the Special Tribunal. 
Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
G 
Shri R. Sunderavardan, learned senior counsel appearing for the first 
respondent, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the 
appeal on the ground that the State did not file any appeal against the 
order of the Tribunal and that, therefore, it cannot file appeal against the 
Special Tribunal's judgment. Though technically he is right, but this Court 
H has power under Article 136 of the Constitution, even to entertain an 
STA1Ev.HISHOUNESSSRILL\SRIAMBAIAVANAPANDARASANNADHIADHEENAKAR1HA 
163 
appeal against the original order of the Tribunal, which stood confirmed A 
in the judgment of the Special Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Per-
mission was granted to file the special leave. Under these circumstances, 
we do not see any force in the contention on the maintainability of the 
appeal. 
It is contended for the appeallant-State that by operation of the 
definition of "private land" under Section 3(13) of the Act read with Section 
3(1)(b) of the Estates Land Act, 1908 and in view of the presu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.