Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2704
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
Palanichamy - Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department - Respondents
W.P (MD) No. 12245 of 2016 and WMP (MD) Nos. 9334 & 9335 of 2016
Decided On : 22-08-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Issac Mohanlal, Sr. Counsel, Mr. G. Vanjinathan
For Respondents: Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, Spl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. M. Karuppasamy Pandian
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for an enquiry and a reasoned order before eviction under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The judgment also emphasizes the specific procedures and statutory mandates under Section 78, and the principle that disputed questions of fact should be left with the fact-finding authorities.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Sections 78, 79 - The court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the eviction notice issued under Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The court held that the Petitioner had no locus standi to file the Writ Petition as the order pertained to a different person and the Petitioner had failed to challenge the main order passed under Section 78 of the Act. The court emphasized that disputed questions of fact should be left with the fact-finding authorities and that the Writ Petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court also highlighted the specific procedures and statutory mandates under Section 78 of the Act, emphasizing the need for an enquiry and a reasoned order before eviction. The court dismissed the Writ Petition and allowed the Petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Competent Authority under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, residing in a house, challenged an eviction notice issued under Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Petitioner claimed that the eviction notice was issued in the name of a different person and that the Respondents had not followed the due process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as the Petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the eviction notice and had failed to challenge the main order passed under Section 78 of the Act. The court emphasized that disputed questions of fact should be left with the fact-finding authorities and that the Writ Petition was not the proper forum for such disputes.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the Writ Petition challenging the eviction notice under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act. The court also considered the Petitioner's claim of residing in the house from time immemorial and the Respondents' claim of encroachment by a different person.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and emphasized the need for an enquiry and a reasoned order before eviction under Section 78 of the Act. The court also highlighted the specific procedures and statutory mandates under Section 78, emphasizing the need for an opportunity of hearing and the recording of reasons for eviction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition and allowed the Petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Competent Authority under the Act.
Heard both sides.
2. According to the Petitioner, their father had constructed a house in Door No. 41, Mariamman Koil Street, Cumbum and they were residing there from time immemorial, for the past 61 years. Their father had also availed water tap connection to the house and the same stands in their father's name till date. They along with his brothers lived jointly in the aforesaid house, till the demise of their father. After that, the Petitioner along with his brother Kandasamy's family are residing in the aforesaid house.
3. The stand of the Petitioner is that his brother Kandasamy's son got appointed in a private Firm in Chennai and by last week of June, 2016, they went to Chennai together with his brother's family, with a view to settling him. When they returned on 11.07.2016, they shocked to see the impugned notice, which pasted in their house, in the name of one Jeganathan. When, the Petitioner had enquired about the same, he learnt that the Respondents had initiated eviction proceedings, against an imaginary person viz., one Jeganathan and in his name, they are trying to evict the Petitioner.
4. The categorical stand of the Petitioner is that no person in the name of Jeganathan resides there and they are residing in the same place from time immemorial. As a matter of fact, the Respondents are endeavouring to evict him without following the due process of Law, in the name of some third person. Furthermore, the Respondents had wantonly gave the address of their house in the impugned Notice, as No. 41, Kambarayar Perumal Koil Street instead No. 41, Mariamman Koil Street, as in village records. Also that, more or both are considered to be same in their locality as their street.
5. The clear-cut plea of the Petitioner is that the Respondents' claim that they had categorised the aforesaid Jeganathan, as an encroacher, and had affixed the impugned Notice for eviction in their house, under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. That apart, the Respondents had not followed the procedures prescribed, under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and without conducting any enquiry had affixed impugned Notice, in their house, by fixing a date of eviction on 13.07.2016. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Second Respondent/Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Dindigul, dated 29.06.2016, is against the Law and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice because of the reason that the First Respondent had not initiated any proceedings, under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Further, he had not afforded any opportunity to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned Notice issued by the Second Respondent/Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Dindigul, is contrary to the plains words of Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
7. At this stage, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the Second Respondent/ Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Dindigul, should have considered that, as per Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, show-cause notice is to be issued and only after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, an action can be initiated under Section 79 for the said Act and furthermore, the impugned Notice cannot be issued straightway. Therefore, the impugned Notice/order of the Second Respondent, dated 29.06.2016, is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, and is violative of Principles of Natural Justice.
8. Yet another submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondents shall consider that no person in
