The story so far: Days after a ban on registration of title deeds for 3,085 acres of patta lands of the public in different parts of Tamil Nadu’s Karur district was lifted, the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench was approached by a Salem resident with a public interest litigation, challenging the District Collector’s decision.
Collector C. Muthukumaran’s recommendation on July 9 to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Commissioner T.G. Vinay was on the lands which once lay in the name of four temples. The HR &CE officials also undertook a follow up. On July 14, the Bench directed the State government to file a counter affidavit to the petition.
How did the controversy break out?
On July 10, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) President C. Joseph Vijay visited Karur for the first time after the September 27 stampede last year that claimed the lives of 41 persons.
Soon after, an activist T.R. Ramesh, through a post on his social media handle, accused the TVK government and the HR & CE department of handing over the lands in question —valued at around ₹25,000 crore— to “encroachers.” Subsequently, the BJP’s State president Nainar Nagendran came down on the TVK regime.
What was the Collector’s decision?
By advising the HR & CE Commissioner to have the restriction lifted, the Collector has paved the way for development or re-development of the properties in question, which are being enjoyed by those who or whose ancestors had been given “ryotwari pattas” individually when the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, came into effect in January 1964.
The ban was said to have been imposed nearly 20 years ago on the advice of the HR & CE department, which had claimed that the lands in question had belonged to the four temples — Sri Balasubramaniar Temple, Pugalimalai; Sri Kalyanapasupatheeswarar Temple, Karur; Ravishwarar Temple, Kuppuchipalayam and Vikrutheeswarar Temple, Venjamankudalur.
Consequently, 3,390 persons who held “ryotwari patta” individually over the lands were affected, as they could not do anything with the properties. They had, for long, represented to the authorities to clear the legal hurdle.
The Collector, in a press note, said the registration of the individual patta lands had been “erroneously prohibited.” On a scrutiny of records, the pattadars’ documents were found to be clean documents, HR & CE Minister Ramesh told journalists on July 14.
The move would benefit, as per an estimate, nearly 10,000 persons. However, ownership over the lands would rest with the government.
What does ‘minor inams’ mean? Why was the system abolished?
Broadly referring to smaller parcels of land, minor inams were historically speaking given to religious and charitable institutions —which had in turn— allowed people to cultivate on their lands, by invoking “melwaram” (the right to collect tax) and “kudiwaram” (the right to actual occupancy and use of the land) rights.
There is a presumption in law that temples holding inam lands have both “melwaram” and “kudiwaram” rights, unless proved contrary. The lands were also entrusted with employees of temples and those for carrying out certain tasks such as “puja,” arranging feast and supplying flowers. Essentially, the granting of lands was conditional — the obligation of beneficiaries having to provide support to and maintain the temples and for rendering specific services to the temples.
The grantees had, over the years, allowed people to cultivate on their lands. As the concept of “land to the tiller” gained greater currency after Independence, the government had decided to abolish inams and intermediaries, who had been collecting rent on behalf of the state; establish its land rights directly with the cultivators and reduce the burden of land tax on the farmers.
How was the system of minor ‘inams’ replaced?
After abolishing the minor inams, the government had brought lands under the ryotwari system, through which pattas were issued to eligible persons. Tahsildars were asked to identify the beneficiaries. The law prescribed that those who had been holding them for 60 years continuously were entitled to “ryotwari patta” straightaway. If they had been in possession of the lands for 12 years at a stretch, they would also be covered with “ryotwari patta” if they paid 20 times the average net annual miscellaneous revenue.
In the case of Karur, the district administration’s position was that such ryotwari patta holders had been affected because of placing their lands under “prohibitory module,” a move which, according to the Collector, was an error.
Why did the stand of the government’s critics gain credence?
The Karur Collector’s communication to the HR & CE commissioner and the HR &CE Joint Commissioner (Tiruppur)’s proposal all came on July 9. The same day, the Commissioner’s office also gave its nod. This was all on the eve of the Chief Minister’s visit to Karur.
The swift action in the matter has raised questions whether there is any political motive as, after all, former Transport Minister during the AIADMK regime, M.R. Vijayabhaskar, is from Karur and now with the TVK.
In its manifesto for the Assembly poll, the AIADMK —on whose ticket the former Minister contested and got elected before switching over to the ruling party— had promised to people that in the event of victory, it would constitute a committee, conduct a comprehensive study, and find an “appropriate solution.” Mr. Vijayabhaskar has since quit the post of MLA.
What is the remedy for such cases?
The HR &CE Minister said that a group of Ministers, including Commercial Taxes and Registration Minister, Revenue Minister and himself, would go into each and every case and provide relief to genuine persons while upholding the interests of temples.
Alternatively, the government could approach the High Court for nominating anyone as an arbitrator to go into such numerous cases and bring them to a finality.
Published – July 15, 2026 05:36 pm IST
