The court upheld the legality of cultivating eucalyptus trees on temple land, finding no substantial evidence of ecological harm and confirming compliance with statutory permissions.

ORDER :

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

Prayer in the Writ Petition reads as follows:-

''To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.36, on the file of the third respondent, dated 25.01.2016, quash the same as illegal, and consequently, to direct the 9th respondent to remove all the Eucalyptus plant saplings in the land property situated in Survey Nos.402/1, 353, 356, 359, 360/2, 419, 351, 360/1, 361/1, 361/3, 361/4, 401/3, 363/1, 363/3, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 373, 374, 376, 377, 379, 379/2, 382/A, 383/1, 383/3, 384/1, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400/1, 400/3, 401/1, 402/3, 403, 404, 405/1, 405/2, 406/1, 406/3, 407/1, 407/3, 408/1, 408/3, 409/1, 409/3, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418/1, 418/3, 420, 421, 422, 423/1, 423/3, 424/1, 424/3, 425, 427, 428, 430, 431 and 432 of Patta No.91 and Survey Nos.337/2, 338, 339, 341, 343/2, 344/1, 327, 318, 321, 322, 323/1, 323/3, 324/1, 324/2, 325/1, 325/3, 325/5, 326/1, 326/3, 328A, 328B, 329, 329/1, 329/3, 331/1, 331/3, 332, 333/1, 333/3, 335, 336, 346/1, 346/2, 346/3, 348/1A, 348/1B, 348/1L, 348/1M, 348/1P, 348/1S, 348/3 and 349 of Patta No.306, in an extent of about 1200 Acres in Paruthipadu Revenue Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.''

2. The Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Nellaiappar and Arulthraum Gandhimathi Amman Temple, Tirunelveli, had, by his letter dated 26.11.2013, sought for permission from the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Tirunelveli, to grow two species of eucalyptus trees in about 1711 Acres of land belonging to the Temple situate at Thenkulam and Paruthipadu Villages of Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, in collaboration with the Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited [TNPL]/the 9th respondent in the Writ Petition.

3. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, had addressed the Government, seeking permission for growing eucalyptus trees in the lands in question in collaboration with the 9th respondent on 12.12.2014. Such permission was granted by the Government, vide G.O.(Ms)No.36, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 25.01.2016. Consequent upon such permission granted under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ''the H.R. & C.E. Act''], the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, by his proceedings dated 14.02.2016, permitted the Executive Officer to grow eucalyptus trees in the lands situate at Thenkulam and Paruthipadu Villages of Nanguneri Taluk. This was to be done on a profit-sharing basis, where the TNPL (9th respondent) would plant and grow the eucalyptus plant saplings. The Temple was to receive 30% of the proceeds from the sale of the trees and the 9th respondent was to take the remaining 70%. The petitioner is challenging this decision.

4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that there was no permission obtained from the Government and that the growing of eucalyptus trees in such vast extent of lands would result in depletion of groundwater in the area, which is already a water-starved area and the other consequence would be the cattle in the area will be left without any land for grazing.

5. Upon notice, the respondents have filed independent counter affidavits. The 9th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit and the other respondents, namely, the respondents 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 have filed independent counter affidavits.

6. We have heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 8; Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the 9th respondent; and Mr.S.Madhavan, learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent Temple.

7. While Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the averments