The importance of due process of law and the consequences of knowingly keeping away from legal proceedings, especially in cases involving encroachment on temple property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records relating to the impugned order, dated 12.05.2017 passed by the first respondent in Miscellaneous Petition No.46 of 2017 and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner is a sub-tenant under one Ramakrishnan, who is a tenant under the third respondent. The said Ramakrishnan entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 15.04.2009, by which petitioner was given possession of the property in lieu of interest free deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. The third respondent sent a notice on 25.11.2012 to Ramakrishnan, who is no more by then. The petitioner met the third respondent several times with request to make him direct lessee on payment of market rent. The first respondent issued a notice, dated 26.12.2012 to the deceased Ramakrishnan under Section 78 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S.No.1186 of 2012 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai and obtained decree of permanent injunction, dated 05.01.2015 restraining the third respondent from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property except under due process of law. The Joint Commissioner by order in M.P.No. 46 of 2017, dated 12.05.2017 under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of the property to the third respondent temple.

2. The petitioner earlier sent representation seeking to make him as direct tenant under the third respondent, which was not considered. The petitioner ready to pay the fair rent or any rent, fixed by the third respondent, the petitioner to show is bonafide has already paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the credit of temple on 19.07.2022. The temple authorities received the same and issued receipt. In view of the same, terming the petitioner as encroacher and taking steps to remove the petitioner is not proper. Hence, filed this writ petition.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner is a sub-tenant under one Ramakrishnan. The petitioner is due to the tune of Rs.7,32,000/- to the temple. On the request of the third respondent, Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department gave report, based on the report, the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department issued notice to the petitioner under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, found the petitioner as encroacher, ordered encroachment to be removed. Despite the petitioner receiving notice has not opposed the same, which is contrary to the civil suit order obtained in O.S.No. 1186 of 2012. The petitioner is aware about the consequences and further proceedings as could be seen from the civil Court order. The petitioner adopting only dilatory tactics to stall the authorities from removal of encroachment.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submits that one Ramakrishnan was leased out 2047.50 square feet of the temple land and the said Ramakrishnan, sublet 680 square feet to the petitioner. The petitioner is not a tenant under the temple. When the temple authorities attempted to initiate action, the petitioner filed civil suit in O.S.No.1186 of 2012, arraying the Ramakrishnan’s wife as first defendant and the temple as second defendant. The civil Court by judgment, dated 05.01.2015 passed an order, following due process of law, action can be taken against the petitioner. Thereafter, proceedings initiated under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Act. The petitioner not chosen to participate in the proceedings, knowing well about the proceedings and its consequence. As on date, the petitioner is due to the temple to the tune of Rs.7,32,000/- out of which the petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.07.2022. Now, the petitioner is due to the tune of Rs.6,32,000/-. The petitioner