Transactions involving temple properties without the knowledge of the temple authorities and the HR&CE Department are not binding, and the HR&CE Department has the authority to protect temple properties in accordance with the law.

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 of the second respondent in impugned order dated 15.12.2020 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to receive and register any document for the petitioner''s property situated at No.11, South Mada Street, Nungambakkam (O.S.No.179,161 and 183 and R.S.No.452; C.C.No.O.F.B.1060 – 3136 sq.ft.) for the purposes of Registration and further direct the fourth respondent to consider patta application of the petitioner for the said property.)

The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the first respondent to receive and register any document for the petitioner''s property situated at No.11, South Mada Street, Nungambakkam (O.S.No.179,161 and 183 and R.S.No.452; C.C.No.O.F.B.1060 – 3136 sq.ft.) for the purposes of Registration and further direct the fourth respondent to consider patta application of the petitioner for the said property.

2. After arguing the case for a considerable length of time, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has chosen to withdraw the present writ petition.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, raised serious objections mainly on the ground that several such writ petitions are withdrawn on earlier occasions with an idea to grab the property belonging to the temples and through Forum Shopping.

4. The subject properties are belonging to the temple and the few greedy men are dealing with the temple properties based on certain documents, which all are not within the knowledge of the Temple Authorities and the HR & CE Department.

5. Certain vital documents are also not produced and certain facts are suppressed. Thus, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, made a submission that the facts are to be recorded in the present writ petition, so as to prevent such persons from dealing with temple properties in suspicious manner.

6. The petitioner states that he has presented the Settlement Deed in favour of his legal heirs in respect of the subject property in Nungambakkam. The first respondent-Sub Registrar refused to register the Settlement Deed on the ground that the second respondent-Temple raised an objection under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The objection submitted by the Executive Officer of the second respondent-temple reveals that the subject property is belonging to the temple.

7. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that he is the owner of the subject property and relied on the Deed of Sale executed at Madras on 30.05.1953.

8. In respect of the said document, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the HR&CE Department, drew the attention of this Court that there is no description about the title of the vendors in the said Sale Deed of the year 1953. The previous history regarding the title has not been stated in the said Sale Deed of the year 1953 and as per the Temple Authorities one Smt.R.Valliammal, who was holding the post of Trustee of the second respondent-temple illegally sold the property to third parties and subsequently actions were initiated against the said Smt.R.Valliammal and she was removed from the Trusteeship. One of the charges framed against the said Smt.R.Valliammal, Trustee was that she had sold the properties illegally to the third parties.

9. The details of the properties belonging to Arulmigu Agatheswarar Prasana Venkatesa Perumal Thirukoil, Nungambakkam has been furnished as under:-