HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Trinethra Dasabuja Anjeneyar Seva Trust Rep. By its President S. Parthasarathy Erode - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others - Respondents
WP No. 33362 of 2014 & MP Nos. 1 to 3 of 2014
Decided On : 27-03-2023
Temple - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act - Section 3, Land Acquisition Act - Section 4, Constitution of India - Article 26
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-Trust claimed ownership of a temple situated on land belonging to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Housing Board disputed the ownership and sought eviction of the petitioner-Trust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner-Trust had illegally encroached on the Housing Board's land and constructed a temple without proper authorization. The court directed the Housing Board to evict the petitioner-Trust and take possession of the land.
Issues: Dispute over ownership of temple land, illegal construction and encroachment by the petitioner-Trust, violation of constitutional provisions on religious affairs.
Ratio Decidendi: Religious activities must be conducted in accordance with the law, encroachment and illegal construction cannot be justified by religious sentiments, Housing Board entitled to evict encroachers and deal with the property in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court rejected the relief sought by the petitioner-Trust, directed the Housing Board to evict the petitioner-Trust and take possession of the land, and outlined procedures for public auction or administration under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act if no successful bidder is found.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in L.A.1/165/08 dated 11.11.2014 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents herein from interfering with the peaceful possession administration of the petitioner temple.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the third respondent informing the petitioner- Trust that they cannot claim title or ownership in respect of the subject property, which belongs to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
2. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, S/o.P.N.Sundararajan, who is the resident of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Colony, Pallipalayam, Erode, filed sworn affidavit on behalf of Sri Thrinethrathasapuja Anjaneyar Seva Trust in his capacity as the President of the petitioner-Trust.
3. The writ petitioner states that in Survey Nos.388/1A and 391/1 in Pallipalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, a temple, namely, Kongu Thirupathi for worshipping the Deities Anjaneyar, Venkatesa Perumal and Panchamuga Vinayagar is situated and managed by the petitioner-Trust, namely, Sri Trinethra Dasabuja Anjaneyar Seva Trust. The writ petitioner-Trust was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act on 31.10.2007 and therefore, the petitioner-Trust is a Society.
4. The Trust/Society was registered for the effective management of the said temple and performance of daily poojas, kumbabishekam etc. The public at large are visiting the temple and therefore the petitioner-Trust requested the respondents to protect the temple from the outsiders.
5. The petitioner has stated that the temple was constructed in Survey Nos.388/1A and 391/1 in Pallipalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, which belongs to the respondent-Department.
6. The petitioner filed Civil Suit in OS No.274 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode to restrain the third respondent from interfering with the management of the temple and to grant injunction. The injunction was granted and the third respondent asked the petitioner-Trust to withdraw the suit. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.09.2005.
7. The petitioner-Trust made several representations to the respondents to regularise the temple and allot the land to the petitioner- Trust on concessional rate.
8. The respondents passed an order fixing the total amount of Rs.18,77,825/- and the petitioner was not in a position to pay such a huge amount.
9. The subject matter was placed before the High Level Committee for consideration and approval. The petitioner received communication from the Chairman of the respondent-Board dated 30.10.2009 vide Board''s Resolution No.9.04. The Board had accepted the recommendations of the High Level Committee to allot the land on collection of the present market value to the petitioner-Trust and the Board''s Resolution was sent to the Government for approval.
10. The first respondent-Government sent a reply to the petitioner-Trust stating that the allocation rights of the Government has been ceased and all the remaining unsold portions of the land were converted as shares belonging to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board represented by the second respondent. The subsequent representations submitted by the petitioner went in vain. The respondents did not allot the land by regularising the occupation of the petitioner-Trust and the temple constructions. Since there is no allotment order made by the respondent- Board, the fourth respondent is frequently threatening the petitioner-Trust. Thus the petitioner-Trust is constrained to move the present writ petition.
11. The counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent reveals that the lands in question and the other lands measuring about 117 acres were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Department under Land Acquisition Ac
Religious activities must be conducted in accordance with the law, and encroachment and illegal construction cannot be justified by religious sentiments.
The Court reaffirmed that temple lands and funds must only be used for religious purposes, asserting the government's lack of authority to misuse such properties under the Hindu Religious and Charita....
Statutory remedies must be pursued before seeking court intervention under Article 226.
Property rights concerning temple lands require valid ownership evidence; proceedings under Section 78 are unsustainable without it.
Government cannot legalize unauthorized encroachment on temple land by rent fixation; must remove and restore.
The court emphasized the importance of fact-finding in an enquiry and directed the petitioners to respond to the notice and appear before the first respondent for further proceedings.
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.