The main legal point established is that the temple has the right to possession of its properties and must follow the legal process for removal of encroachment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to remove the lock and seal on the premises at bearing Old No.28, New No.44, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.)

1. It is a case where a temple is unable to get possession of its properties though it is being enjoyed by encroachers who claim to be sub lessees of the original lessee of the temple.

2. It is admitted that the property belongs to the second respondent temple. It is also admitted in the course of hearing that the temple has instituted a Suit and obtained a Decree as against the original tenant and the execution proceedings have also been initiated by the temple. However, it is stated that the petitioner who claims to be a sub lessee under the original lessee has filed a civil revision petition and obtained an interim order of stay of the execution proceedings.

3. It is established that the whole premises in the property of temple and the temple has also obtained an order of eviction. Irrespective of the fact that the temple has initiated execution petition, there is no legal impediment to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. However, the temple cannot pass orders directly to remove the encroachment without following the due process of law.

4. It is submitted that the second respondent has put the premises under lock and seal. This Court is unable to find any statutory provisions to justify taking possession without following the procedure under Section 78 of the Act. It is not appropriate for the Executive Officer to take possession without recourse to law. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been paying the arrears of rent as directed by this Court in W.P.No.12067 of 2022 filed by this petitioner against the first respondent. The writ petition under reference is one among a batch of writ petitions filed against the first respondent. However, it is seen that the said batch of writ petitions were filed challenging the levy of property tax levied on the petitioner and others. The previous writ petition was disposed of by directing the first respondent herein to recalculate the arrears of property tax properly and notify the petitioners of the same, so that it may paid by them. The said writ petition has no connection with the impugned order.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even earlier batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.18881 of 2009 etc., were preferred by the petitioner challenging the impugned demand notice dated 01.09.2009 for payment of arrears towards property tax. This Court had quashed the demand notice and directed the respondents to issue fresh demand notice and further directed the petitioner to remit the rent to the first respondent / Commissioner herein towards arrears of tax. However, from the order in the earlier writ petition, this Court is unable to find the petitioner's name in any one of the writ petitions. The second respondent is not a party and the order is not binding on the temple. It is stated by the second respondent that huge amount of arrears has not been paid either by the principal lessee or the petitioner and other tenants. As on date arrears from all the sub tenants has accumulated. As per the impugned order more than Rs.2.75 crore is claimed as arrears. By impugned order purported to have been issued under Section 34 B of the Act, it is stated that possession is taken. However, possession cannot be taken without resorting to Sections 78 and 79 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act after following the procedure.

7. It is admitted that the premises are now under lock and seal and therefore it is necessary to direct the respondents to remove the lock and seal on the