Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 829
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
Arulmighu Bhava Ouzhadheeswaraswami Thirukkoil Devasthanam rep by its Executive Officer
Versus
Director of Medical and Rural Health Services & Others
W.P. No. 2508 of 2007
Decided On: 08-02-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S.K. Rakhunathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Kavitha, Government Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a religious institution cannot effect any transfer of its property without first obtaining necessary sanction from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Acquisition of Temple Land - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a temple, sought mandamus to direct the respondents to pay for the land acquired by the government for a hospital. The government had taken possession of a portion of the land and started construction, but delayed payment for the land. The petitioner sought payment for the remaining land, but the court found that the petitioner cannot legally effect any transfer without first approaching the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and getting necessary sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's writ petition was filed in disregard of the order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, and thus rejected the relief sought. The writ petition was dismissed, and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department was directed to protect the interest of the Temple in respect of its property.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to mandamus to direct the respondents to pay for the remaining land acquired by the government for a hospital.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner cannot legally effect any transfer of the property without first approaching the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and getting necessary sanction for the same.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department was directed to protect the interest of the Temple in respect of its property.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the cost of the land extending 0.98.5 Hectares in S.No.195/5 and 195/7 at the same rate as fixed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department by his order dated 23.06.1999 with interest.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate representing the respondents are heard.
3. A total extent of 2.18.5 Hectares comprised in Survey Nos.195/5 and 195/7 in Thiruthuraipoondi Village admittedly belonged to Arulmighu Bhava Ouzhadheeswaraswami Thirukkoil, Thiruthuraipoondi, which Temple, represented by its Executive Officer, is the petitioner in the writ petition. The Government proposed to build a hospital for public benefit and the said land was identified to be a suitable piece of land for the said purpose. The Government decided to proceed with the acquisition of the property not by using eminent domain, but by having a private negotiation and following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, since the property belonged to a public Temple. Pursuant to the said decision, negotiations were held and before the conclusion of such negotiations, the District Collector of Thiruvarur, passed orders on 23.06.1999 permitting the respondents 1 to 4 to take possession of 1.20.0 Hectares being part of Survey No.195/5 and to start construction of the building for use as hospital. Thereafter, proposals were made for fixation of price and for the sale of the said land to the Government and necessary sanction for the sale of the land was sought for from the Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administration Department, Chennai.
4. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, accorded sanction for the sale of 1.20.0 Hectares forming part of Survey No.195/5 by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, by his order dated 23.06.1999. The price of the land was fixed at Rs.47.50 per square feet with an enhanced value at the rate of 150%. Thereafter, with some delay and after persuasion and steps taken on behalf of the Temple, a sum of Rs.91,99,218.60 came to be paid as the price for the said land extending 1.20.0 Hectares.
5. Subsequently, the fourth respondent viz., the District Collector, Thiruvarur, issued a proceeding in Na.Ka.28918/2004 U2 dated 20.10.2004 directing the second respondent to take possession of the remaining extent of land comprised in Survey No.195/5 and also an extent of 0.76.0 Hectares comprised in Survey No.195/7 and put up a compound wall including the entire extent of 2.18.5 Hectares in anticipation of sanction being accorded by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai. In the very same proceedings, the fourth respondent also asked the second respondent to immediately start the construction work, besides directing the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department (Buildings and Maintenance) to complete the construction work that had been undertaken on the 1.20.2 Hectares of land, possession of which had already been taken. Pursuant to the above proceedings of the fourth respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 have enclosed the entire extent by a compound wall without even paying the land cost and without initiating proceedings for acquisition of the land exercising the State's eminent domain.
6. The Executive Officer of the petitioner Temple seems to have sent communications to the respondents for payment of the price of the land at the same rate at which 1.20.0 Hectares of land was sought to be sold with the permission of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. After repeated reminders, the respondent
