JUDGMENT :

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

The validity of the order dated 21.12.2017 made in W.P.(MD) No. 1734 of 2017 by a learned Single Judge of this Court is put to challenge in this appeal by the third parties.

2. Originally, the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition in W.P.No.1734 of 2017 are as follow :

2.1. The first respondent is the petitioner before the writ court. According to him, he was permitted to occupy the land measuring 200 sq. ft. in S.No.933 belonging to Arulmigu Mariamman Temple by the erstwhile trustees for a monthly rent of Rs.200/-, besides a sum of Rs.10,000/- being paid towards Security Deposit. He put up a superstructure with ACC Roof in the year 1997 and had been running a Vessel shop.

2.2. While so, the Temple was taken over by the Hindu Religious and Endowments Department (HR & CE Department) and the fifth respondent herein has been looking after the affairs of the temple on behalf of the Department. According to the petitioner, he started to pay the rent to the fourth respondent herein.

2.3. The fifth respondent herein contemplated an action under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short, "HR & CE Act") and recommended to the fourth respondent to take action against the encroachers. Based on the same, the fourth respondent vide order dated 30.09.2013 directed the writ petitioner to vacate the subject premises and handover the possession of the same.

2.4. Aggrieved over the said order, the first respondent herein/writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, HR & CE, on 03.01.2014 and also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.670 of 2014 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.01.2014 directed the Commissioner to take up the appeal and the interlocutory application and decide the same on merits on or before 10.02.2014.

2.5. Pursuant to the said order, the Commissioner, HR & CE passed order dated 09.06.2014 in R.P.No.37/2014/D2 confirming the order dated 30.09.2013. The first respondent/writ petitioner filed a revision on 18.08.2014 before the Government under Section 114 of the HR & CE Act.

2.6. The writ petitioner, who was before the Madurai Bench of this Court in the first round of litigation, had filed W.P.No.22987 of 2014 at the principal seat seeking a direction to dispose of the said revision. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 22.08.2014, without expressing anything on merits, and thus, directed the Secretary to the Government to dispose of the revision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Pursuant to the said direction, G.O. (Ms)No.313, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 17.12.2014, was passed dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.

2.7. The petitioner questioned the said order before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1885 of 2015, which was disposed of on 06.12.2016 permitting him to make a request to the HR & CE authorities for extending the lease, as it was his claim that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property.

2.8. The petitioner made a representation dated 12.01.2017 to the authorities armed with the said order. However, his request was repudiated vide order of the fifth respondent dated 22.01.2017. The said order was questioned before the writ court.

3. A counter-affidavit had been filed by the Assistant Commissioner before the writ court denying the tenancy of the first respondent herein/petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was the permissive occupant by one of the erstwhile trustees, without the knowledge of the other trustees, which was admitted by him, and such permission was never authorised by the HR & CE Department and hence, the petitioner is only an encroacher and following due process of law, eviction process was initiated. It was submitted that the temple administration was attempting to provide better basic amenities to the devotees, however, the encroachment made by the petitioner and ot