SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2710

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
R.M. Balasubramaniam - Appellant
Versus
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (MD) No. 15728 of 2022 & W.M.P. (MD)No. 11321 of 2022
Decided On : 29-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Selva Adithya, G. Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, M. Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader, R2, C. Guhaseelarupan, Standing Counsel.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the confirmation of the petitioner's encroachment on Temple premises and the direction for the petitioner to file a revision before the Commissioner within a stipulated period.

Headnote:

Encroachment - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Section 78, Section 21 - The court discussed the encroachment by the petitioner on Temple premises, the legal status of the petitioner as a sub-tenant, and the provisions of Section 78 and Section 21 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. The court directed the petitioner to file a revision before the Commissioner within a stipulated period and maintained status quo for a specific duration.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a sub-tenant under Kalimuthu Kone, was declared as an encroacher on Temple premises. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent, citing health concerns and denying permission for non-vegetarian food on the property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's status as an encroacher was confirmed, and directed the petitioner to file a revision before the Commissioner within a stipulated period. The court also maintained status quo for a specific duration and allowed for dispossessing the petitioner if no protective order was obtained after the specified period.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's encroachment on Temple premises, the legal status of the petitioner as a sub-tenant, and the enforcement of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's admission of being a sub-tenant, the confirmation of encroachment, and the direction to file a revision before the Commissioner within a stipulated period.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to file a revision before the Commissioner within a specific period and to maintain status quo for a designated duration. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to M.P.No. 17/2019/E1, dated 21.04.2022, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner challenging the order passed by the first respondent in M.P.No.17/2019/E1, dated 21.04.2022, filed this Writ Petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that one Kalimuthu Kone was residing at Door No.34, Lakshimpuram West, Devakottai, which belonged to the third respondent Temple. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant. Initially, there was a thatched house and over a period of time, it became dilapidated. Thereafter, in the year 2017, the petitioner renovated the same and residing there. The petitioner herein also enjoying the adjacent property by planting trees and also put up a temporary shed in order to provide food to the devotees of the Temple. Though the tenancy was in the name of Kalimuthu Kone, the petitioner was regularly paying the rent to the Temple. Some people inimical to the petitioner given complaints to the Temple authorities. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ''the H.R. & C.E. Act''] initiated. On receipt of summons in the said petition, the petitioner made his appearance by engaging an Advocate, filed counter affidavit on 05.12.2019. In the meanwhile, the Temple authorities filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in M.P.No.17 of 2019, seeking to restrain the petitioner to use the property, which was allowed. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred W.P.(MD)No.8486 of 2021. This Court, by order dated 26.04.2021, dismissed the said Writ Petition with the direction to complete the enquiry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, the first respondent passed an order on 21.04.2022, declaring the petitioner as encroacher and directed him to vacate the premises within 30 days. The said order was received by the petitioner on 20.06.2022. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 65 years old senior citizen, having various health ailments and if the impugned order is to be enforced, grave prejudice and irreparable loss would be caused to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not permitting any cooking of non-vegetarian food in the property in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that no non-vegetarian food is allowed to be cooked in the Temple lands and further, he undertakes that no such cooking would be permitted by the petitioner, which is against the custom and practice of the Temple.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner on his own admits that he is a sub-tenant under one Kalimuthu Kone, thereby, he is an encroacher. The petitioner, being an encroacher, tried by the proceedings in M.P.No.17 of 2019, by citing one reason or the other. The petitioner encroached the land, which is adjacent to the Temple, wherein the petitioner permitted nonvegetarian cooking and also allowing feast. Since it disturbs peace and tranquillity of the Temple, enquiry has been conducted. The petitioner's status as encroacher confirmed in the proceedings initiated and thereafter, order passed. If the petitioner is aggrieved, to file a revision before the Commissioner under Section 21 of the H.R. & C.E. Act, within a stipulated time and not to file a writ petition.

5. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submits that Arulmigu Silambani Chidambara Vinayagar Temple, situated at Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District, is a Hindu public religious institution. The vacant site to an extent of 79.50 sq.mt. comprised in Door No.34, Ward No.J6/2, Lakshimpur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top