The main legal point established is that the power to cancel a lease of immovable property belonging to a temple lies with the Court under Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, and not with the Board under Section 34.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The petitioner has applied for the issue of a writ of certiorari with the view to the quashing of the proceedings taken by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board for the cancellation of a lease granted to him by the trustee of the temple of Sri Adimooleswarar, Agaram, Chidambaram Taluq, South Arcot District. Notice was issued to the Board and the Court has heard the arguments of the learned Advocates who have appeared for the respective parties. In August, 1938, the petitioner applied to the trustee of the temple for a lease for a term of 99 years of certain lands belonging to the temple. His intention was to utilize the lands for salt pans. The trustee granted the lease and it was registered on the 29th of August, but it had not been sanctioned by the South Arcot Temple Committee and therefore admittedly it was invalid. On the 30th November, 1938, the matter of the lease was considered by the Committee which resolved to cancel it, but decided to sanction a new lease for a period not exceeding 25 years. In I pursuance of the resolution passed by the Committee the trustee granted a lease to the petitioner on the same terms as the cancelled lease, except that the period was reduced from 99 years to 25 years. The resolution of the Committee can only be read as sanctioning a lease on the same terms as the previous lease with this modification.

2. In the neighbourhood of the land covered by the lease are salt pans owned by a salt contractor carrying on business under the style of Sri Sivananaintha Nadar and Company. The proprietor of this firm felt aggrieved at the granting of the lease to the petitioner and moved the Board to cancel it. The result was that the petitioner was called upon to show cause why his lease should not be cancelled. The decision of the Board was embodied in an order dated 5th April, 1939. The Board considered that the resolution of the Committee sanctioning the lease was improper and not inaccordance with the requirements of the law. The reasons for this opinion are stated and are these:-The Committee had not shown why a lease for 25 years should be granted; when a lease is granted for more than five years Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, requires it to be established that it is necessary or beneficial to the temple and this had not been done; the lease had been given privately and not as the result of public auction; the lease would not be beneficial to the temple and it would change the character of the land, there being on it 70 tamarind trees bearing fruit. The area covered by the lease is 24 acres. In pursuance of this order the Board called upon the Temple Committee to submit a report on the action taken by the Committee in sanctioning the lease. It is admitted that in passing these orders the Board purported to be exercising powers conferred upon it by Section 34 of the Act. The petitioner says that the section does not vest the Board with power to cancel the lease and that action with a view to its cancellation can only be taken under the provisions of Section 76.

3. Section 34 of the Act reads as follows:

1. The resolutions of a Committee shall be carried into effect by its President in whom the entire executive power of the Committee shall, save as hereinafter provided, be vested.

2. (a) All the resolutions of a Committee shall be notified to the Board within one week after they are passed.

(b) The Board may call for any record or proceedings or other document or paper from any Committee for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, regularity or propriety of any order or proceedings recorded or passed by such a Committee.

3. (a) The Board shall have the power of staying, for reasons to be recorded by it, the execution of any of the resolutions of the Committee and remitting the same to the Committee for reconsideration.

(b) If the Committee upon such reconsideration confirm the said resolutions, the Board may, whenever it