The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the petitioner must establish ownership or title through documents and evidence before the appropriate forum.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent vide Proceedings M.P.No.70/2021/A2 dated 15.03.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents to surrender the land comprised in Survey No.1377, situated at No.9, Ammani Amman Gopura Street, Tiruvannamalai.)

The writ on hand has been instituted, questioning the validity of the eviction order passed in proceedings dated 15.03.2023 under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ''HR & CE Act'')

2. The petitioner Trust was declared as an Encroacher and consequently, eviction proceedings were initiated under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act.

3. The petitioner states that the ancestors of the petitioner Mutt/Trust viz., Bangalore T.A.Vaiyaburi Chettiyar Ammani Amman Madam Trust namely Yasodai Ammal, Pattammal, T.M.Janakiraman and T.M.Loganathan. Some third parties trespassed into the said Trust land and the suit was instituted for declaration and recovery of possession in O.S.No.100 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, claiming that their family alone should be in Management of the Trust and the properties of the petitioner''s Mutt/Trust viz., No.9, Ammani Amman Gopura Street, Tiruvannamalai. The suit was dismissed by the Sub Court on 24.11.1986. Challenging the judgment and decree, the appeal suit in A.S.No.347 of 1987 was filed before the High Court and the High Court of Madras passed an order as follows:

“11(f) In the above said paragraphs, it has already been found that there is a trust and therefore, the above averments are untenable. The respondent and his father knew exactly who Rathinavel Chettiar was and that he is Vaiyapuri Chettiar''s descendant entitle to manage the Ammani Ammal Madam. Only by Ex.A25 dated 23.09.1986 the appellants were put on notice of the intention of the respondent to claim the property for himself. The suit has been filed in 1983 and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession.

12. For all these reasons, the Judgment of the Trial Court is set aside. A.S.No.347 of 1987 is allowed and the suit is decreed as prayed for. No costs.

13. In view of the wishes of the testator in Ex.A1 and the obvious practical difficulties faced by the appellants to manage the trust and to protect it from persons like the respondents who might grab it for personal use, a direction is given to the appellants to co-ordinate with the Executive officer of the Tiruvannamalai Devasthanam so that, the Devasthanam authorities or any other charitable trust like the charities mentioned in Ex-A1 are made trustees along with the family of the appellants”.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the observations made in the order passed in the appeal suit would be sufficient to establish the right of the petitioner with reference to the subject property. The respondent / Temple authorities have not established that the Temple is the owner of the subject land. The suit instituted for declaration ended with an observation by the High Court that the Executive Officer has to assist the Management and thus, the Management vests with the petitioner and therefore, the eviction proceedings are null and void.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further reiterated that the eviction proceedings initiated under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act are untenable, in view of the fact that the petitioner had already established its rights in respect of the subject property and therefore, the eviction proceedings initiated under Section 78 perse is to be declared as null and void.

6. Even in respect of the order passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. Proceedings dated 12.08.2011, there is an observation that the petitioner Trust is entitled for possession of the property. Therefo