Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
C.H.S. Gopi - Petitioner
Versus
Tamil Nadu Vanniyakula Kshatriya, Public Charitable Trusts & Endowments Board, Rep. by its Chief Administrative Officer and Anr. – Respondents
Crl RC. 1820 of 2024 and Crl.M.P. No.15009 of 2024
Decided On : 06-12-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Counsel for Mr. CV. Shailandhran
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Ananthanarayanan Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Gnanasekar, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
Provisions under the Tamil Nadu Vanniyakula Kshatriya Act require property to be gazetted for eviction orders to be valid; non-compliance voided the order.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Vanniyakula Kshatriya Public Charitable Trusts and Endowments (Protection and Maintenance) Act, 2018 - Section 52(1) - Eviction of encroacher - Judicial Magistrate found first respondent entitled to evict petitioner; petitioner challenged the order, asserting lawful ownership and non-gazetted status of property - Court held provisions of the Act could not be invoked since property was not gazetted as required under Section 5 - Evidence showed first respondent’s prior possession and that petitioner derived ownership from his father’s now-cancelled title documents - Impugned order set aside. (Paras 10 and 11)
(B) Judicial Authority - Authority of Magistrate to invoke statutory provisions for eviction - When proper powers not adhered to, orders are nullified as lacking jurisdiction. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The first respondent seeks eviction of the petitioner alleging encroachment on property under the Act's provisions; the petitioner claims lawful possession backed by documents.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed due to non-adherence to the gazetting requirement outlined in Section 5 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was empowered to pass the eviction order without the property being gazetted as required by the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the provisions could not be invoked without compliance to the gazetting requirement, confirming the lack of jurisdiction in the eviction order.
Result: Revision allowed and order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and property in dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondent's argument supporting eviction. (Para 7) |
| 3. analysis of judicial powers under the act. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. lack of authority for eviction based on gazette requirement. (Para 10) |
| 5. conclusion allowing revision and closing petition. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The revision challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, under Section 52(1) of the Tamil Nadu Vanniyakula Kshatriya Public Charitable Trusts and Endowments (Protection and Maintenance) Act 2018, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession of the property measuring 1092 sq.mt., situated in TS.No.50, Block No.21, Ward 27H, Thiruvottiyur, within a period of 15 days to the first respondent/Tamil Nadu Vanniyakula Kshatriya Public Charitable Trusts and Endowments Board.
2. The first respondent Board was established by the Tamil Nadu Vanniyakula Kshatriya Public Charitable Trust and Endowments (Protection and Maintenance) Act, 2018, (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The above Act was enacted to protect and maintain the Public Charitable Trusts and Endowments, which were created and being administered by the persons or organizations of Vanniyakula Kshatriya Community across the State of Tamil Nadu.
3. Claiming that the property is maintained by one of the Trusts, which has been registered with the first respondent Board; and that the petitioner had encroached upon the said land, the first respondent filed a petition under Section 52(1) of the Act.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, held that the first respondent is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 52(1) of the Act and directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession to the first respondent within fifteen days. The revision challenges the said order.
5. Heard Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the second respondent.
6(a). Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, ought not to have invoked the provisions of the Act to evict the petitioner since the property in question is not gazetted in terms of Section 5 of the Act; and that the Public Charitable Trust, who claims rights over the property is not registered with the first respondent.
(b). The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the property and he is in possession of all the documents and hence prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur.
7. Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent/Tamil Nadu Vanniyakula Kshatriya Public Charitable Trusts and Endowments Board, would submit that the Trust for whom the first respondent filed this petition before the learned Magistrate is in possession of the property from 1874; that the petitioner's father was only a lessee in the said property and the petitioner claimed ownership based on a Settlement Deed executed by his father; that all the documents of title have been cancelled since the Trust is the lawful owner; and that the property is registered with the Board and could not be gazetted for some reasons and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur; hence he prayed for dismissal of this revision.
8. The only point involved in this revision is whether the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, was empowered to pass the impugned order under the Act. As stated earlier, the Act was enacted to protect the properties of the Trusts and Endowments that are administered by persons or organizations of the Vanniyakula Kshtraiya Community across the State of Tamil Nadu. The Act therefore has provided for certain special Provi
