ORDER

'Land admeasuring 2.64.0 hectares comprised in R.S.No.25/2, Sullipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity) is the subject matter of the captioned writ petitions and the temple we are concerned is 'Arulmigu Vijayapuriamman Temple at Sullipalayam, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District' (hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

2. Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel on record for the writ petitioners and Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned State Counsel on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 hereinafter collectively referred to as 'TN HR&CE Dept.' and also representing the State Public Prosecutor's Office on behalf of 4th respondent are before me.

3. Learned Counsel for writ petitioner submits that said temple is disturbing the writ petitioners' possession qua said land de hors due process of law.

4. Responding to the above and adverting to the detailed counter affidavit filed by TN HR&CE Dept., learned State counsel submits that due process of law has been adhered to as said temple has initiated proceedings under Section 78 of 'The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act.22 of 1959)' which shall hereinafter be referred to 'TN HR&CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity. Learned Counsel submits that this position stands admitted by the writ petitioners as there is an averment in this regard in paragraph 3 of the writ affidavit which reads as follows:

'3) The petitioners further submits that when that be the position, in the year 2012, the 3rd respondent, the Executive Officer of A/m. Vijayapuriamman temple of Sullipalayam, took steps to evict them forcibly and on enquiry, it revealed that the Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E., the 1st respondent herein passed order for eviction under Sec.78 of Tamil Nadu H.R & C.E. Act as if the above land belongs to the 4th respondent temple on 15.02.2012 without conducting any proper enquiry. As the respondents took hectic steps to evict them, O.S.No.17 of 2013 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Perundurai, came to be filed against the respondents herein and sought for a declaration of the title based on their long possession and enjoyment apart from the valid sale deed of the same and for a permanent injuction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the application was also taken up for interim injuction in I.A.No.89 of 2013 against the respondents in the above suit in which notice was ordered and the same is pending enquiry. In the above suit, the respondents also filed written statement contesting the suit property. That apart, we have also sought for a declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15.02.2012 as null and void and not binding upon the petitioners.'

5. Interestingly and intriguingly, after 78 proceedings, the writ petitioners have filed a civil suit in the jurisdictional Civil Court vide O.S.No.17 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Perundurai. The prayer paragraph in the plaint is paragraph 11 and a perusal of the prayer reveals that the writ petitioners have inter alia sought declaration of orders made in Section 78 proceedings being order dated 15.02.2012 bearing file number 76/2011/B1 made by the Joint Commissioner (first respondent in captioned writ petition and second defendant in the suit) as null and void. Such a suit is clearly impermissible, as suit if any can only be under Section 79 (2) of TN HR&CE Act assailing title of said temple, but that is not the case here.

6. Therefore, proceedings under Section 78 of TN HR&CE Act initiated by said temple and orders made in the same, have to be assailed in the manner provided in TN HR&CE Act, which has been repeatedly held to be a self-contained Statute by this Court in a long line of authorities, more importantly, if the writ petitioners have a rival claim, there is a provision for the same vide Sec