Back
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Chennai – Respondent
Key Points: - The Act challenges relate to the constitutional validity of Sections 78, 79(3) and 109 of the HR & CE Act, as amended, under challenge to ultra vires the Constitution of India. [21000878280001] - The Court held that the appellants/petitioners were encroachers since they occupied without the approval of the competent authority and continued after expiry/termination/cancellation of lease. [21000878280013] - The amendment Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 28 of 2003, introducing Section 109, is upheld and considered akin to providing a removal of limitation, allowing action to restore temple properties. [21000878280021] - Section 78 procedure requires Joint Commissioner to issue show-cause notices, consider objections, conduct inquiry, and pass eviction orders; the Joint Commissioner’s orders are not absolute and can be reviewed or remitted. [21000878280014][21000878280017] - Section 79(4) bars Civil Court suits or injunctions against proceedings under Section 78, but the bar applies to encroachers, not to lawful possessors such as lessees/licensees/mortgagees. [21000878280016] - The Court directs the Commissioner/State to implement Sections 34, 34-A, 34-B (lease regime) and to execute lease deeds with rent fixation to protect temple properties, indicating a shift towards enforcement via lease mechanisms. (!) [21000878280028]
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J
1. The issue involved in all these matters is being intrinsically inter-connected, all were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In all these matters the challenge is with regard to constitutional validity of Sections 78, 79(3) and 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959) (in short "the HR & CE Act") as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1996 as well as by amended Act 28 of 2003 as ultra vires the Constitution of India.
3. The appellants and the petitioner in W.P.No.20487 of 2010 claim to be the tenants / lessees in occupation of the land belonging to the Temple concerned for the past several years. According to the appellants / petitioner, while they are in lawful occupation, the authorities of the HR & CE Department had issued notice purported to be under Section 78(2) of the HR & CE Act to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. Admittedly, without offering any objections as contemplated in Section 78(4), the appellants as well as the petitioners have approached this Court to declare the various provisions of the HR & CE Act as unconstitutional.
4. Ms. Chitra Sampath,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
