The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging Section 10A of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act of 1963 which bars the grant of ryotwari patta (a form of private property ownership granting farmers rights over the land they cultivated) in respect of any private tank or oorani/ ponds [Madhu Sri Akkabai Ammani Ghadge Rao Trust v. State of Tamil Nadu].

The Court rejected the argument that the provision violated a temple's religious and ownership rights over a water tank that had historically been used for temple rituals.

In its August 13 ruling, a Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and AD Maria Clete noted that tanks, whether they are used for religious purposes or otherwise, serve vital ecological and communal roles by storing water, recharging groundwater, and sustaining agrarian life.

As such, the Bench opined that the State legislature was well within its authority to adopt a uniform rule (such as by introducing Section 10A) vesting all water tanks in the State, thereby preventing their fragmentation into private holdings.

"Creating exceptions based on temple attachment or the absence of direct irrigation use would defeat the overarching public purpose of preserving water bodies as shared environmental commons," the Court added.

It further held that the temple cannot claim that its religious rights have been violated, when it too retains the rights to continue using the water tank - albeit not exclusively.

"The contention that denial of patta impairs religious rights is misplaced. Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India safeguard the freedom to profess, practise, and manage religious affairs, but they do not confer an absolute right to retain proprietary ownership over property merely because it is historically associated with religious use ... Section 10-A of the Act does not bar the temple from drawing water for ritual purposes; it merely withholds exclusive ownership over a natural resource that has been statutorily vested in the Government. Ritual access is preserved; proprietary dominion is not. There is, therefore, no infringement of religious freedom," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a plea by the hereditary trustee of the Madhu Sri Akkabai Ammani Ghadge Rao Trust, which manages the Somanathar Temple in Soorakottai Village in Thanjavur.

The temple had been gifted certain land in 1932, which housed a water tank that the temple used for its rituals.

However, the temple was later denied the grant of a patta recognising its ownership rights over this property, since Section 10A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act barred the grant of such pattas when it came to water tanks.

In its plea before the Court, it argued that the water tank had always been solely used for temple rituals and never served irrigation or agriculture.

It, therefore, questioned why patta was denied under Section 10A, arguing that the water tank had nothing to do with the law's stated purpose of agrarian reform.

It added that the denial of patta would violate religious rights since the use of the tank was essential to temple worship.

It further challenged the validity of Section 10A by arguing that it amounted to colourable legislation (a law that tries to achieve indirectly that which is not allowed to be done directly). The temple argued that Section 10A indirectly enables the acquisition of non-agricultural and religious property without providing compensation.

The State countered that Section 10A uniformly applied to all water tanks, regardless of whether was used for temple purposes or not. It refuted the claim that the water tank had been used only for religious purposes, recounting that auctions were held for fishing rights over the tank in past years.

The Court observed that the 1963 law had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in S Thenappa Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu.

The Court added that Section 10A would also would have the same immunity unless it is ultra vires the parent Act, which was not the case.

The Court further said that the de-privatisation of water tanks advanced a Directive Principle under Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the community's material resources should be distributed for the common good.

The Court also rejected the temple's argument that its constitutional right to property was violated. It did not find merit in the claim that Section 10A amounted to colourable legislation either.

Advocates Niranjan S Kumar and V Balaji represented the petitioner (trustee of temple trust).

Special government pleader SP Maharajan appeared for the Tamil Nadu government.

[Read Judgment]