The court ruled that a petitioner must pursue available alternative remedies in civil court rather than initiating independent proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

(K. KUMARESH BABU, J.)

The challenge in the Writ Petition is to an order made by the first respondent under Section 79(1) of the Hindu Religious Charitable &Endowment, Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “H.R.&C.E. Act”).

2. Heard Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Subbaraj learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondent, Ms.M.Aasha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the third respondent, Mr.R.Sankar Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and Mr.K.Chengizkhan, learned counsel appearing for the fifth and sixth respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a lifetime Trustee of Arulmighu Koppudaya Nayagi Amman Koil. The petitioner is a Senior Auditor and using his self acquired funds had built a large hall for the welfare of the Women and devotees of the said temple in a property which do not belong to the temple. However, the fourth respondent temple claiming to be the owner of the premises had held that the petitioner to be an encroacher and initiated eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the H.R.&C.E., Act. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.11449 of 2021. When the said Writ Petition came up for hearing on 20.02.2023, it was pointed out by the petitioner that he has got effective alternative remedy of filing a Suit as envisaged under Section 79(2) of the H.R.&C.E. Act, as the petitioner had disputed the title. Hence, permission was sought for from the Court to withdraw the said Writ Petition with liberty to resort to the alternative remedy. The permission was also granted to the petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a Suit and the benefit of the Limitation Act was also included. Immediately thereafter the petitioner had preferred a Suit in O.S.No.120 of 2023, before the Sub Court, Devakkottai and the said Suit has also been taken on file. When the suit was pending, the first respondent herein had issued an order under Section 79 (1) of the HR&CE Act without awaiting the results in the suit. Hence, he would submit that the order passed by the first respondent that too pending the suit is wholly arbitrary and is with a malice intention to make the suit infructuous, denying the statutory right available to the petitioner. Hence, he seeks this Court indulgence to the order impugned in this Writ Petition.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that even though, the suit had been filed against the order passed under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act, the petitioner has not been granted with any interim orders. But, however, the petitioner is enjoying the fruits of the property belonging to the temple and is to unjustly enriching himself and therefore, petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as prayed for in this Writ Petition.

5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent would submit that the petitioner is not the owner of the property. Even according to the petitioner, the property is declared as a poramboke land but standing in the name of the temple. Therefore, it would not mean that the lands belong to the Revenue Department, but, only to the temple. Taking advantage of the wrong entries in the Revenue Records, the petitioner is attempting to usurp the property belonging to the temple. He would further submit that a Scheme Decree had been framed in respect of the temple and the petitioner cannot title himself, as a life trustee who is in sole management of the trust. The petitioner had not even attempted to give effect to the Scheme Decree as envisaged under the same. He would reiterate that the petitioner is a rank encroacher and no indulgence be shown to the petitioner.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the impleading parties who seeks to implead themselves as fifth and sixth respondents in this