ORDER :

Anita Sumanth, J.

1. W.P. No. 16095 of 2015 has been filed by three petitioners and W.P. No. 16460 of 2015 by one, all petitioners challenging order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department/JC, HR & CE/R2 as confirmed by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department/R1 dated 27.02.2015 and seeking a directing forbearing the respondents from interfering with their possession of property bearing new S. No. 25/- Hec. 2.00.3/old S. No. 112/5 Ac. 4.95 out of Ac. 6.27 in Thiruvahindrapuram Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District (property I/property I in question) and S. No. 67/3 Hec. 0.33.0 in Thiruvahindrapuram Village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District (property II/property II in question).

2. The petitioners claim to be cultivating tenants and barring the difference in the details of the property at issue, the facts as well as the issues that arise for determination in their respective cases, are more or less in synchronisation. Admittedly, properties I and II belong to Arulmigu Devanathaswamy Thirukoil, Thiruvahindrapuram Village, Cuddalore Taluk and District (Temple/Temple in question). Property I, agricultural land was leased originally to three persons, Veerammal, Krishnamoorthy and Appadurai Padayachi under a registered lease deed dated 04.11.1965.

3. The lessees took possession, raised crops and complied with all terms of the lease deed. Despite the initial lease being for a period of five years, they continued uninterrupted in possession. The lease rentals were enhanced over the years and at the time of filing of the Writ Petitions in 2015 was an amount of Rs. 3,900/- per annum.

4. The petitioners in W.P. No. 16095 of 2015 claim to be successors-in-interest of the original lessees who continued their possession of the property as well as their compliance of all terms of the original lease. They would state that the aforesaid arrangement has been validated by R2, who is well aware of their possession and cultivation of the land and has been receiving the lease rentals from them regularly and issuing receipts for the same. Substantial amounts are stated to have been invested by them in making the property fit for agriculture, such as installing a motor, digging a bore well and obtaining electricity connection.

5. As far as W.P. No. 16460 of 2015 is concerned, property II was leased out to the petitioner's father Krishnan Padayachi who was in possession, tilling the land till his demise. Thereafter, the petitioner stepped into his shoes and states that he continues the physical labour upon the land complying with all conditions of the original lease.

6. There was a proposal for development of properties I and II by the Temple for a car park and notices itself came to be issued to the petitioners by the temple terming them encroachers in terms of Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short 'HR & CE Act') and calling upon them to vacate the lands in question. Despite the contest laid by the petitioners, orders dated 06.08.2014 came to be passed confirming the position that the petitioners were encroachers and calling upon them to vacate the properties within 15 days from date of receipt of the original order.

7. The petitioners challenge the orders by way of revisions before R1 in terms of Section 21 of the HR & CE Act and the revision petitions came to be dismissed confirming the orders of eviction. The revisional authority notes that the properties under occupation were required by the temple for provision of basic amenities to the visiting devotees and it is thus that the temple administration terminated the lease vide notices issued as early as in 2010.

8. According to the respondents, the continued occupation of the properties by the petitioners despite the termination of the lease, would result in they having encroached upon the lands and thus there was nothing untoward in the orders passed under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act.