SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
T. Baskaran and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowments Department and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD)Nos.11154 & 11278 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7985 and 8035 of 2022
Decided On : 25-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms. J. Anandhavalli, Mr. B. Saravanan.
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Lingadurai, Mr. M. Muthugeethayan.

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.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Challenge to Notices under Section 78(2) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959 - [Section 78(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959] - The court discussed the validity of the impugned notices issued under Section 78(2) of the Act, highlighting the conditions of the Settlement Deed, the nature and character of the Samathi, and the authority of the first respondent to conduct an enquiry. The court emphasized the need for fact-finding in an enquiry and directed the petitioners to respond to the notice and appear before the first respondent for further proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged notices issued under Section 78(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959, seeking explanation as to why the petitioners should be declared as encroachers of the Temple property. The petitioners claimed valid possession and enjoyment of the property for public causes and community service.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petitions with a direction to the first respondent to proceed with the enquiry as per the notice issued, emphasizing the need for fact-finding in an enquiry.

Issues: Validity of impugned notices, nature and character of the Samathi, authority of the first respondent to conduct an enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fact-finding in an enquiry and directed the petitioners to respond to the notice and appear before the first respondent for further proceedings.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with a direction to the first respondent to proceed with the enquiry as per the notice issued. The petitioners were directed to respond to the Notice and appear before the first respondent for further proceedings.

ORDER :

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the record pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.P.No.45/2022/Aa3, dated 26.05.2022 and quash the same.)

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Miscellaneous Petition No.47 of 2022/Aa3, dated 26.05.2022 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.)

In W.P(MD)No.11278 of 2022, the petitioner is challenging Notice issued in M.P.No.47/2022/Aa3, and in W.P(MD)No.11154 of 2022, the petitioners are challenging Notice issued in M.P.No. 45/2022/Aa3, respectively dated 26.05.2022, both issued under Section 78(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959, seeking explanation as to why the petitioners to be declared as encroachers of the Temple property.

2. The contention of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11278 of 2022 is that the community elders of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiars' constituted a Trust in the name of “M/s.Morupatti 24 Manai Telungu Chettiars Charitable Trust", by executing a Deed of Trust, dated 03.07.1992. The Trust has purchased 50 cents of land in TS.No.860/2, Ward No.3, Block No.18, East Giri Street, Palani Town, Dindigul District, to an extent of 34,899 Sq.ft. The petitioner Trust purchased the property by a Sale Deed, dated 13.07.1992. Ever since the purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property.

    1. The petitioners purchased the property for valid consideration, for the Trust, for their public cause and community service, during the year 1992. The object of the Trust is for construction of Kalyana Mandabam, to enable poor people to celebrate their marriage at free of cost, to establish and run an orphanage Old Age Home, to fund, construct Hospitals, Educational, Vocational Medical Institutions and Home for disabled crippled and handicapped children and other social act. The petitioners shown as respondents 19 and 20 in W.P(MD)No.77 of 2019, thereafter only, the petitioners came to know about the Settlement Deed.

2. xxxx”

4. The property originally belonged to one K.Mariappan. By a Settlement Deed, dated 21.07.1941, the said Mariappan executed the deed in favour of one Sadaiappa Chettiar on certain conditions. One of the conditions is that, after life time of the said Mariappan, Sadaiappa Chettiyar and his wife V.Parvathi Ammal were at liberty to enjoy the property, without subjecting the property to any encumbrance. Further, after the lifetime of Mariappan, they could enjoy the landed property and can be transferred to third parties, if they wished.

5. One of the primary conditions is that at the North East Corner of the property, the Mortal remains of aforesaid Mariappan buried and every year, on the date of Death Anniversary, Poojas shall be conducted by Sadaiyappa Chettiyar and Parvathi Ammal and after them, their legal heirs and the purchasers of the property, if any. Thus, the registered Settlement Deed made it very clear that the property can be transferred to third parties.

6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to understand that by proceedings of the Inspector, HR & CE, Palani in Na.Ka.No.110 of 2018, dated 05.07.2018, a report was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE, stating that on 11.06.2018, a spot inspection was conducted by the Tahsildar, Palani and other officials, based on the complaint that the property of 'Arulmigu K.Mariappan Samathi' was illegally sold. Further, the report reveals that there are several buildings constructed around Samathi and there are several buildings and shops constructed in the property. Hence, the Inspector, HR & CE, recommended to recover the portion of the aforesaid property and to take action against the persons, who sold the property under Land Grabbing Law. The Assistant

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top