State authorities cannot exercise jurisdiction over a temple located in another territory, highlighting the importance of territorial jurisdiction in religious endowments.

JUDGMENT :

D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

A. The Questions:

1. The questions which arise for our determination in this Writ Appeal are,

(i) whether action of the authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, in appointing a fit person in respect of the properties of the appellant Temple is without jurisdiction as extra territorial exerciser of power?; and

(ii) even if they had jurisdiction, whether a fit person can be appointed in respect of property of the temple?

B. The Appeal:

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.01.2020 in W.P.No.23096 of 2013, by the said order, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ Petition, on the following terms:

“19. In the result, the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration and the third respondent shall pass final orders under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including granting him the right of personal hearing and after considering all the objections raised by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

20. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

2.1 In the said Writ Petition, the appellant/writ petitioner had prayed for a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent, in G.O.(Ms) No.91, dated 16.05.2013, to quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from taking any action against Sri Viswanathaswami Devasthanam, Melavanjur, Thirumalairayar Pattinam, Puducherry.

C. The Factual Matrix:

3. The case of the appellant is that the aforementioned temple is situated in the Union Territory of Puducherry. The Hindu Religious Institutions situated within the Territory of Puducherry are governed by the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 (hereinafter ‘the Puducherry Act’). The appellant is a private temple. A certificate is already issued by the Additional Commissioner of Hindu Religious Institution, Puducherry, that the temple in question is not coming under the purview of the Puducherry Act.

3.1 The appellant temple is possessed of wet lands, ad-measuring an extent of acres 26.13 cents and dry lands ad-measuring an extent of acres 182.55 cents, which are situated in Panangudi Revenue Village, Nannilam Taluk, Nagapattinam District, in the State of Tamil Nadu. While so, a show cause notice dated 25.10.1994 was issued to the appellant as to why a fit person should not be appointed for management of the aforesaid lands. Though an explanation was submitted by the appellant, objecting for such an action, the objections were rejected and a fit person was appointed for managing the said lands, to collect the arrears of rent in respect of the said lands from the cultivating tenants, similarly to collect the arrears due from the plots, to fix fair rent in respect of the above said lands, and to evict the encroachers from the lands. The Executive Officer of the Arulmigu Navaneethaswamy Temple, Sikkal, Nagapattinam District, was given additional charge as the fit person. Aggrieved by the said order, a review petition in R.P.No.32 of 2007 is filed before the second respondent herein. By an order dated 11.10.2010, the review petition was dismissed. Against which a furthe