Tamil Nadu

Temple management and residents at loggerheads in Srirangam

SRIRANGAM: For the past few months, residents of the temple town of Srirangam have been living in fear of being asked to vacate their houses, which are to be classified as temple property. Many have received legal notice asking that they acknowledge the Ranganathaswamy temple as the owner of the property and pay suitable rent, or else to vacate and hand over the property to the temple. Letters have been written to the local registration office informing it about the temple’s objection to any sale of property within the temple precinct.

At the heart of the dispute is the title deed number 1027 issued in 1866 and renewed in 1910. It declares 320 acres land surrounding the temple devadayam (what is given to the temple). Srirangam has a unique settlement pattern with seven concentric prakaras, or ritual enclosures, and the whole arrangement is encircled by a larger eighth enclosure. In the outer three forms, the town and the 320 acres in dispute are located.

Kavitha, Joint Commissioner, Ranganathaswamy temple, says the 320 acres belongs to the temple as confirmed by various settlement registers. But the affected residents contest this. K. Prabhakar, counsel for a few of them, says the nature of land ownership in the outer three enclosures is not uniform, and the temple does not enjoy absolute right. “There are property where the residents have valid documents predating the 1866 deed of the temple. Secondly, the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Convention into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, abolished all inam land and compensated the temple by paying an annual allowance known as ‘Tasthic’ for perpetuity.” Every year the Ranganathaswamy temple gets Rs.3, 875 as ‘Tasthic,’ he says, producing a copy of the receipt given by the temple dated March 2003. This, he argues, establishes that the temple does not have right to the land.

The temple authorities have a different view. Ms. Kavitha says the residents may have built the superstructure, but the inam commission title deeds and registers support the temple’s claim.

She also disagrees with the claim that the inam abolition Act has nullified temple’s ownership of 320 acres. “We have obtained valid royatwari pattas on appeal to the inam settlement registrar, and through court. In cases where our ownership is absolute, we want to have the property back.” In the cases of dual ownership, the temple wants the resident to pay annual rent. Furthermore, it insists that the owner of the building can not sell the property, but can only effect a name transfer because the temple owns the land. In such cases, the temple will charge a nominal sum for name transfer, and the new buyer has to follow the norms laid down by the temple such as prohibition of the use of the premises for objectionable activities, says Ms. Kavitha Many residents want to know why the temple did not take up this issue earlier but is bringing it up now. “The temple had written to the Revenue Department to make suitable amendments to the records. Unfortunately this was not done by the Revenue Department,” Ms.Kavitha explains.

As for possible displacement of residents, she says: “The temple is a public institution, and we will never create any hardship for them. What we are attempting is only to recover temple property.” When asked about the legal notice and demand for vacating the houses, a senior government official said the language of the legal notice only follows the established format, but the government is not serious about displacing people; instead, it prefers an amicable settlement without the temple incurring any loss.

The temple should make its property ownership records public. This will prevent legal disputes and protect the gullible senior citizens and others who are keen on buying property at Srirangam, says Prabhakar.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu