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 pertaining to the impugned exparte order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.P.No.1 of 2013 dated 01.07.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner request of purchase as per the communication of the 1st respondent dated 09.03.2010 in X.%.vz;. 13916/2010 tp3 dated 09.03.2010.)

Common Order:

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

1. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.14889 of 2013 has been filed for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.P.No.1 of 2013 dated 01.07.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's request of purchase as per the communication of the 1st respondent dated 09.03.2010.

2. The facts leading the Writ Petition are not complicated. The following properties situated at Vickramasingapuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, admittedly belong to the fourth respondent.

The fourth respondent is a “specified endowment” within the meaning of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'HR and CE Act'). The fourth respondent had been established for the purpose of performance of Kattalais in the Arulmigu Papanasaswamy Temple in Tirunelveli District. The fourth respondent owns vast extent of properties, of which, the aforesaid 11 acres are the subject matter of the Writ Petition.

3. It seems that the petitioner was originally in possession of 44 acres of land belonging to the fourth respondent, which had been taken on lease. On account of the dispute that arose between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, a suit came to be filed in O.S.No.253/1980 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Ambasamudram. After full trial, the suit came to be dismissed. Against which, an appeal was preferred before the Sub Court at Tenkasi in A.S.No.29 of 1985.

4. Pending the first appeal, the writ petitioner came up with an offer to settle the matters. Accordingly, out of the total extent of 42 acres and 26 cents then in occupation of the writ petitioner, it agreed to surrender 31 acres and 36 cents to the fourth respondent while retaining 11 acres. Accepting the compromise, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (hereinafter referred to as HR and CE Department), authorised the withdrawal of A.S.No.29 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi.

5. Subsequent to this proceeding, an agricultural lease deed was entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. As per the terms of the lease deed, an yearly income of Rs.2000/- (for each fasli) was to be paid by the writ petitioner to the fourth respondent. The relevant portions of the deed show that the property should be maintained as a “ryoti land” and the writ petitioner should use it only for cultivating purposes.

6. Alleging that the writ petitioner had converted the agricultural land to non-agricultural use, in particular, putting up of superstructures, a notice was issued terminating the lease by the fourth respondent on 22.10.2012. This was received and replied to by the writ petitioner on 01.11.2012. Since possession was not handed over, M.P.No.1 of 2013 was initiated before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli.

7. On service of notice, a reply was filed by the writ petitioner admitting to the lease, but denying that it was only for agricultural purposes. It was pleaded that Item Nos.2 to 4 in the aforesaid tabular column were not agricultur