Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
A. Jaffarullah - Petitioner
Vs.
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 12289 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 14405 of 2018
Decided On : 10-05-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajkumar Paul.
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Maharaja, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE).
The court emphasized the authority of the Executive Officer to evict encroachers as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 78, Section 79
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, running a business on premises belonging to a temple, challenged a notice of eviction issued by the temple's Executive Officer. The petitioner claimed to be a regular rent payer but failed to produce a valid lease or license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was an encroacher as per the Act and that the eviction proceedings were in order. However, the court emphasized the duty of the temple authorities to conduct proceedings in accordance with the Act and Rules.
Issues: Validity of eviction notice, Authority of the Executive Officer to issue notice, Legal rights of the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Executive Officer was competent to evict encroachers as per the provisions of the Act. It also emphasized that a writ against a notice can only be entertained on exceptional circumstances.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and the petitioner was permitted to submit a reply to the eviction notice. No costs were awarded.
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the notice issued by the third respondent in proceedings dated 25.04.2018 and to quash the same.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner has been served with a notice by the third respondent in respect of the premises under his occupation. The petitioner is running Nilgiri Agro Agencies at Door Nos. 6 & 7 at V.P. Street, Coonor. Admittedly, the property belongs to Arulmigu Sivasubramaniaswami Thirukovil, V.P. Street, Coonoor, The Nilgiris. There is no dispute in respect of the title or ownership of the property and the third respondent/temple is the owner of the property. The petitioner claims that he is regularly paying rent to the temple. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Executive Officer has no authority to issue any such notice of eviction. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contention by stating that the writ petitioner is an encroacher. There is no lease or licence has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner and he is in illegal occupation. Even on a perusal of the entire typed set of papers filed in support of the present writ petition, it is seen that only two documents are enclosed in the typed set of papers. The first document dated 03.10.2017, is the rental receipt issued by the Executive Officer and the second document is the impugned notice dated 25.04.2018. The writ petitioner has not filed even a single document to show that he is having a valid lease or licence granted by the competent authority of the HR & CE Department. In the absence of any such lease/licence, the persons, who are in occupation of the temple property have to be treated as encroachers. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the action initiated against the writ petitioner.
4. Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”) reads as under :-
“78. Encroachments by persons on land or buildings belonging to religious institutions.
Where the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the religious institution is situated has reason to believe that any person has encroached upon any land or building belonging to the religious institution which is appurtenant to or adjoins the religious institution, or any sacred tank, well, spring or water-course, appurtenant to the religious institution, whether situated within or outside the precincts thereof or any space within or outside the prakarams, mantapams, courtyards or corridors of the religious institution (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the encroacher), the Assistant Commissioner shall report the fact together with relevant particulars to the Joint or Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction over the division in which the religious institution or endowment is situated.
Explanation." For the purpose of this section, the expression "encroacher" shall mean any person who unauthorisedly occupies any tank, well, spring or water-course or any property and to include-
(a) any person who is in occupation of property without the approval of the competent authority (sanctioning lease or mortgage or licence) and
(b) any person who continues to remain in the property after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence granted to him.
(2) Where, on a perusal of the report received by him under sub-section (1), the Joint Commissioner finds that there is a prima facie case of encroachment, he shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a notice specifying the particulars of the encroachment and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why an order requiring him to remove the encroachment before the date specified on the notice should not made. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to the trustees of th
