Chandra Reddy, C.J:— The question that arises in this Writ Appeal is whether a patta could be granted under section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXXVII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to an archaka who was put in possession of lands for services to be rendered by him.
2. This question arises out of a compromise entered into between the trustees of the temple of Sri Janardhanaswamy Varu of Kopperapadu, Ongole taluk, Guntur district and the Archaka attached to this temple. The temple owned about Ac. 31-67 cents of land comprised in S. No. 77 of Kopperapadu; but they were in the possession and enjoyment, of the Archakas obviously under an arrangement entered into in the unknown past between the Archakas and the then trustees of the temple. After the coming into force of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act (II of 1927), the trustees appointed by the Board sought to recover possession of these lands by filing a petition under section 84 of that Act. This was resisted by the Archakas on the contention that they were personal inams. Ultimately, the petition ended in a compromise by and under which the title of the deity to this property was tacitly recognised and the Archakas were put in possession of three-fourths of the lands, half for their remuneration and another one fourth for expenses of the daily worship. The other one-fourth was retained with the trustees for the other expenses connected with the temple. It was stipulated that the archakas were to be in possession and enjoyment of the land so long as they rendered the service in the temple. They were also to remain in possession of the portion allotted for purpose No. 2 on condition of their utilising the income therefrom for the expenses of daily worship and to hold the same only so long as the said conditions were fulfilled and without any rights of alienation.
3. It may be mentioned here that this compromise was entered into on the advice of the then Advocate-General of Madras. Ever since, the archakas have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands rendering service in the temple and incurring expenses for the daily worship, i.e Paditbaram.
4. While so, the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1986 was passed. By virtue of the provisions of this Act, the concerned Inams Tahsildar suo motu started enquiry under section 3 to decide as to Page: 142whether the inam land was held by any institution or not. On the material that was available and after hearing the archakas, he came to the conclusion that these lands were held by the temple of Sri Janardhanaswamy Varu.
5. The aggrieved archakas carried an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer who came to the opposite conclusion. He based his opinion, that the inam land was not held by the institution but by the archakas, on the compromise referred to above. It may be mentioned here that the Revenue Divisional Officer disposed of this appeal without notice to the temple in whose favour the decision was given. Needless to observe that it is a curious procedure adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and we are unable to comprehend as to why he adopted this procedure. An application filed on behalf of the deity was dismissed without proper reasons.
6. The trustee who was dissatisfied with this decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer (the Appellate Tribunal) invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the time of the hearing of the petition the trustee invoked Order 41, rule 27 for receiving additional evidence consisting of the entries in the extract of the Inam Fair Register in relation to Kopperapadu. This request was also rejected by our learned brother, Justice Chandrasekhara Sastry, on the ground that it was not filed before the Tahsildar. On the merits the learned Judge felt that the archakas were entitled to the patta, since they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands under the terms of the compromise which was binding on the trustees. In the result, he refused to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is this decision of our learned brother that is impeached before us.
7. It is not necessary for us to consider whether the extract from the Inam Fair Register should have been received or not, because its only effect is to prove that the grant was to the deity. Indisputably, the compromise in O.P No. 20 of 1935 proceeded on the footing that the properties belonged to the institution and it was only on that basis that the archakas were put in possession of the inam lands in lieu of remuneration for rendering services. That apart, even today the title of the tempee to these lands is not put in issue by the other side and the argument of the counsel for the respondents proceeded on the basis of the inam being granted to the deity. Therefore, the non-admission of the Inam Fair Register as additional evidence does not in any way prejudice the appellants.
8. The only question that falls for determination is whether the possession and enjoyment of the lands in dispute would entitle the archakas to claim a patta under section 4(1) of the Act. This depends upon the interpretation to be placed on that section. It runs as follows:—
“4. (1) In the case of an inam land in a ryotwari or zamindari village the person or institution holding such land as inamdar on the date of commencement of this Act shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect thereof.”
9. The answer to this appeal turns upon the meaning to be given to the expression “person or institution holding such land as inamdar”. Does the mere fact that the archaka was enjoying the land under the arrangement set out above bring him within the connotation of the clause “person or institution holding such land as inamdar”? It is seen that the condition to be fulfilled before a patta can be issued is that, the holding should be as an inamdar. Could it be postulated in this case that the archaka inducted into possession under the compromise indicated above is holding the land as an inamdar?
10. In our opinion, this question is capable of only one answer, namely, that he was not holding it as an inamdar. Incontestably, the title vested in the temple but it was only by way of satisfactory arrangement and to avoid further disputes, he was given some lands to be enjoyed so long as he rendered service satisfactorily. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the moment he ceases to render service, the temple is entitled to take possession thereof. If that were so, it is difficult to predicate that the possession and enjoyment of these lands is traceable to the right of the archakas as an inamdar. It is well settled that a trustee has no authority to permanently alienate or to create a permanent tenure therein. That position cannot be and is not contested by the learned Counsel for the respondent. If that were so, the compromise between the archakas and the trustees should be treated as a tentative arrangement, subject always to revision.
11. In Venkiah v. Raghavacharyulu (1955) A.L.T 808 , (1956) An. W.R 1 it was ruled by a Division Bench of this Court that a similar arrangement was a temporary arrangement between the arochakas and the temple trustees, subject to periodical adjustments from time to time and it cannot be regarded as a permanent alienation of the temple lands. Having regard to the nature of this arrangement, the person in possession and enjoyment of these lands could not be described as an inamdar.
12. We do not think that the observations of this Court in Punnich v. Sri Lakshami Narasimhaswamy Varu (1963) 2 An. W.R 214 would come to the rescue of the respondent. In that case the inams contemplated by the Act fell into three categories-grants to the institution, grants to an office to serve as emoluments annexed to it and grants to named individuals burdened with service. It was stated in that judgment that the patta in respect of the first class should be granted to the institution and patta concerning the inams belonging to the other categories should be issued to the holder of the office or to the descendants of the original grantee as the case may be. Dealing with category No. 1 we said that the fact that the holder of the office could not alienate the property would not stand in the way of claiming a patta as he still answered the description of a person holding the lands as inamdar. The observations are inapplicable to a case of a grant to the institution. The enjoyment of the lands by a person other that the institution under the arrangement mentioned supra would not clothe that person with a right to be called an inamdar. His possession and enjoyment was not in his Page: 144own right, the enjoyment being traceable to the arrangement indicated above. In the circumstances, we think that the patta should be issued to the temple as the owner of the property and not to the archaka.
13. It must be mentioned that the validity and the binding nature of the arrangement is not called in question and therefore we are not called upon to answer whether it is binding for all time. We are, however, told by the counsel for the trustee that the possession and enjoyment of the arcaka will not be disturbed so long as he renders service in the temple satisfactorily as per the terms of the compromise.
14. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of the Inams Tahsildar is restored and that of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the decision under appeal are set aside.
15. No costs.
16. The Government Pleader's fee is fixed at Rs. 100 and it will come out of the funds of the temple.
17. Appeal allowed.