The HR & CE Department has jurisdiction to enforce rent collection from property tenants, and appellants’ claims of ownership without evidence fail to substantiate their appeal.

JUDGMENT :

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 05.08.2025 made in W.P.No.28957 of 2025.

2. There is a Temple called the Arulmigu Ekambareswara Thirukoil, Aminjikarai, Chennai-29, which is administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments [For brevity, hereinafter referred as “the HR & CE”] Department. There has been an Executive Officer and hierarchy of Officials like the Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the HR & CE Department supervising such administration. The property in question belongs to the Temple. It is claimed to have been let-in by the Temple to the appellants/writ petitioners for ground rent several years back.

3. It is the claim of the appellants/writ petitioners that, since 1974, they have been enjoying the property, where, a pakka multistorey commercial complex had been constructed and out of such commercial complex, several lakhs, if not crores of rupees, is being earned by the appellants/writ petitioners by way of rent.

4. However, it seems that, this appellants/writ petitioners have not paid any rent to the Temple Authorities and such rent was mounting even ten years back, where, in the letter of the first appellant dated 23.12.2016, the following has been admitted:-

5. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the arrears, as of now, would amount to Rs.3,65,41,370/-. Despite this huge arrears of ground rent payable to the Temple, which has not been paid by the appellants/writ petitioners, since the appellants/writ petitioners are enjoying the property continuously, the Assistant Commissioner concerned, under Section 78 (1) of the HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT , 1959 [In short “the Act of 1959”] since had a reason to believe that the continuous physical possession of the property in question by the appellants/writ petitioners could only be construed as an encroachment, a report seems to have been given by him to the Joint Commissioner concerned, who, under Section 78 (3) of the Act of 1959, issued the show-cause notice on 01.03.2018. The said show-cause notice was challenged by the first appellant in the first round of litigation in W.P.No.23199 of 2018.

6. The said writ petition was dismissed by the order of the Writ Court dated 10.09.2024. Before the Writ Court, it was the ground urged on behalf of the first appellant that, the Joint Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of the HR & CE Department do not have any jurisdiction to issue such show-cause notice under Section 78 (2) of the Act of 1959, as the land in question does not belong to the Temple.

7. Though such ground was raised, those grounds having been considered, were rejected and the writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court by its order dated 10.09.2024. As against the said order, no intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellants/writ petitioners, thereby, the said order of the Writ Court made in W.P.No.23199 of 2018 dated 10.09.2024 became final.

8. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the HR & CE Department once again proceeded to issue notice dated 24.10.2024 to enquire under the same provision, that is Section 78 (2) of the Act of 1959, seeking the enquiry to be conducted on 06.11.2024. This notice for enquiry has been impugned in the present writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners in W.P.No.28957 of 2025.

9. The second round of litigation, that is W.P.No.28957 of 2025, was dismissed by the Writ Court by the order dated 05.08.2025, which is impugned herein.

10.1. Mainly on the ground of constructive res judicata, since the writ petition was dismissed, it is the contention of Mr.V.Venkatasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners that, the Doctr