BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C. SARAVANAN, J.
Chithrai Selvam - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (MD) No. 9183 of 2020 & W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 8390 of 2020 & 9141 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Writ Petition - Possession of Wet Land - Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963 - S.No.233/1 and 2 - Summary: The petitioner sought restoration of possession of wet land leased to a third party by the Temple. The court found that the petitioner's father had surrendered the land and accepted that neither he nor his family would claim any right against the Temple. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had no locus standi as neither he nor his father was the tenant of the Temple property. The court directed the Temple to auction the property at the end of the current lease period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought restoration of possession of wet land leased to a third party by the Temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's father had surrendered the land and accepted that neither he nor his family would claim any right against the Temple. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had no locus standi as neither he nor his father was the tenant of the Temple property.
Issues: Possession of leased wet land, Surrender deed, Locus standi of the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's father had surrendered the land and accepted that neither he nor his family would claim any right against the Temple. The petitioner had no locus standi as neither he nor his father was the tenant of the Temple property.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Temple was directed to auction the property at the end of the current lease period.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in O.Mu.No.14240/2020/V3, dated 29.05.2020, signed on 30.05.2020, by the first respondent, quash the same and give a mandatory direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to restore possession of the disputed wet land comprised in S.Nos.233/1 and 2, measuring an extent of 94 cents of Ambasamudram Village and Taluk, Tirunelveli District.)
1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 30.05.2020, and has prayed for a mandatory direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to restore possession of the wet land comprised in S.No. 233/1 and 2, measuring an extent of 94 cents of Ambasamudram Village and Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2. The case of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner's father late.Arunchalam Moopanar was a tenant/cultivator to the third respondent Temple and that there was a proposal in the year 2009-2010 for acquiring the aforesaid land for construction of Court Complex in Ambasamudram. It is submitted that under these circumstances, the petitioner's father surrendered the land back in favour of the third respondent Temple. It is further submitted that prior to the above said event, the Temple had also filed a suit against the petitioner's father for certain reliefs, whereby the petitioner's father was restrained from converting the wet land meant for agriculture for any other purpose.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father surrendered the land under the bona fide impression that the land is being acquired for construction of a Court Complex and thereafter, the petitioner was surprised to note that the third respondent has leased out the property for a period of three years in favour of the fourth respondent on 29.05.2020. It is further submitted that the lease in favour of the fourth respondent was granted when the entire Country was under lockdown due to Covid-19 outbreak. It is therefore submitted that the entire exercise carried out by the third respondent in collusion with the fourth respondent, which has been approved by the first respondent, is contrary to the provisions of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father had also attempted to get the property re-leased and approached the third respondent Temple. However, the request was rejected by the Temple by its letter, dated 18.09.2015. It is therefore submitted that the lease has been made surreptitiously given by publishing an advertisement in an unknown Newspaper which did not have wide circulation in the area concerned and therefore, the entire proceedings to go.
5. Opposing the prayer in this Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts, inasmuch the petitioner's father executed a surrender deed, dated 29.03.2010, which was also recorded by the Special Collector, by an order dated 30.03.210, in the presence of the petitioner's father and thereafter, orders also came to be passed. It is submitted that despite the surrender, the petitioner attempted to encroach on the property and therefore, the Temple constrained to file a complaint before the eighth respondent on 14.07.2015 and 19.11.2016. Meanwhile, the proposal for constructing the Court Complex was dropped and the proposed construction of Court Complex was built in the existing Complex itself. The learned counsel for the Temple further submits that the property has been leased to the fourth respondent after the Fair Rent Fixation Committee had fixed the fair rent and therefore, the petitioner cannot question the same. That apart, it is submitted that after the property was leased to the fourth respondent, the petitioner suppressed the material facts and moved this Court and obtained an order of ex
Locus standi of the petitioner and surrender deed acceptance by the petitioner's father.
The court established that a deity can be represented in legal proceedings by a priest, and that proper representation is essential in land acquisition cases.
Court directs temple authorities to complete land survey before considering lease claims of possessory cultivators.
Estoppel of tenant from disputing the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The High Court may issue a direction under Article 226 to public authorities to consider and dispose of a grievance representation in accordance with the law, without expressing an opinion on the mer....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.