COMMON ORDER

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.11178 and 11179 of 2024, these two petitions have been filed to issue an order of interim direction to the respondents 2, 3 and 5 not to give effect to the order dated 02.04.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.3940 of

2020.

2. In W.P.(MD)No.3940 of 2020, this Court had passed an order on

02.04.2024, based on the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent temple that the temple will take action to remove the encroachers. Contending that this order was passed behind their back and they were not made parties to the writ petition, though the address where they are residing was given as residence of two other individuals by name, Singaperumal Iyer and Niranjan Babu.

3. The fact that the petitioners in these two miscellaneous petitions are residing in the addresses given in the main writ petition is not being disputed. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to the effect that the main title dispute is actually pending in the form of Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.1612 to 1616 of 2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also granted an interim order on 16.01.2024, staying the operation of the orders passed in Special Tribunal Appeals No.1 of 2002 batch, by this Court, dated 03.03.2023. It is also the contention of Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Inam Tribunal which is made in C.M.A.Nos.30 of 1978 etc, which are being relied upon by the temple to clean title to the lands in question are void ab initio as an appeal against the order of the settlement Tahsildar itself is not contemplated under the Act.

4. We do not propose to delve into the said question as the entire question of the title is being examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending Special Leave Petitions. We further find that in W.P.(MD)No.3940 of 2020, the prayer was to take action under the Town and Country Planning Act on the ground that the structures were unauthorized structures. The structures are unauthorized structures because of the fact that the temple which claims paramount title is objecting to the grant of planning permission. Many of the structures in the three outer prakarams of the temple are unauthorized, since approvals were not issued, because of the objections made by the temple. This Court had earlier passed orders directing the authorities to go slow on the aspect of planning approval, since the title dispute is still pending. The same would be applied to the present petition also.

5. We however, find that the temple has been directed to take action for eviction of the petitioners considering them as encroachers. Originally, the settlement Tahsildar had in fact granted Patta for the building in the name of the occupants and the right of the temple to collect rent has also been specifically considered and negated. The orders of the settlement Tahsildar were reversed in the Inam C.M.As. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Inam C.M.As. itself are not maintainable and reliance in that regard is placed on the judgment in Salini Ammal and others .vs. Sri Vedharanyaswamy Devasthanam reported in 1997 (2) Law Weekly 320 and Sri Vedharanyaswamy Devasthanam .vs. A.C.Dharma Devi and others reported in AIR 1996 (7) SCC 467. Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan would also submit that a judgment of the Tribunal without jurisdiction is void ab initio and it can be ignored by the Court relying upon the judgment reported in 2002 (9) SCC 2020, we do not propose to pronounce on that aspect since the question of title is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the order dated 02.04.2024 is recalled and W.P.(MD)No.3940 of 2020 will stand dismissed. W.M.P. (MD)Nos.11178 and 11179 of 2024 are allowed for the reasons stated above.

6. W.P.(MD)Nos.10050 and 10430 of 2024:

Challenge in these two writ petitions is to the notice issued by the Joint Commissio