Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Immam Deen - Petitioner
Vs.
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 12290 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 14406 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 Act and highlighted the importance of utilizing temple property for the benefit of devotees.
Headnote:
Encroachment - Temple Premises - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Section 78, Section 79
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate, was running an office in premises belonging to a temple without a valid lease or license. The temple authorities issued a notice for eviction citing the need to extend the temple office.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was an encroacher as per the Act and upheld the eviction notice. The court emphasized the importance of utilizing temple property for the benefit of devotees.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the eviction notice issued under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Executive Officer had the authority to evict encroachers as per the Act, and that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to challenge the eviction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, allowing the petitioner to submit a reply to the eviction notice. No costs were awarded.
The petitioner in this writ petition has stated that he is practicing Advocate in Nilgiris District. The senior to the petitioner was granted with the permission to run an advocate office in the temple premises. The senior is immobilized and unable to attend the Courts. Therefore, the senior advocate has handed over the advocate office to the writ petitioner to continue the office. Accordingly, the petitioner is running an advocate office in the premises belongs to the temple. Admittedly, the owner of the premises is the temple and the only contention of the writ petitioner is that he is paying rent regularly to the temple. However, the writ petitioner is unable to produce any document to show that he has been granted a valid lease/licence by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act.
2. 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.
3. 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 the religious institution or endowment concerned.
(3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed.
(4) Where after considering the objections, if any, of the encroacher received during the period specified in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) and after conducting such inquiry as may be prescribed, the Joint Commissioner is satisfied that there has been an encroachment, he may by order and for reasons to be recorded, require the encroacher to remove the encroachment and deliver possession of the property (land or building or space) encroached upon to the trustee before the date specified in such order.
(5) During the pendency of the proceeding, the Joint Commissioner shall order the encroacher to deposit such amount as may be specified by him in consideration of the use and occupation of the properties in question in the manner prescribed.”
4. The mode of eviction of the encro
