SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R. Swaminathan, J
Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Naganathasamy Thirukkovil – Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos.26037 & 26038 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Jameelarasu
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Chandrasekar

Property rights and eviction under temple management statutes require formal declarations.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of a tender notice issued by the respondent temple. It was determined that the petitioner had not obtained necessary declarations regarding his superstructure on the land owned by the temple, leading to dismissal of his request. The court held that the petitioner could remove certain items under supervisory conditions. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs.

Table of Content
1. initiation of eviction process by temple management. (Para 1 , 2)
2. determination on the validity of petitioner's claims regarding property. (Para 4)

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner was in possession of the land that belongs to the respondent temple. The temple initiated steps under Section 78 of the Act to evict the petitioner. Eviction was ordered on 05.06.2018 by the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Madurai. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed R.P.No.61 of 2025 before the Commissioner of HR&CE Department. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned tender notice for letting out the property in question.

3.The case of the petitioner is that he had put up a superstructure.

However, no declaration has been obtained in favour of the writ petitioner in this regard. Therefore, I am not in a position to concede the petitioner's request. That apart, R.P.No.61 of 2025 filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed on 03.11.1014 by the Commissioner. Copy of the dismissal order has been produced before me by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent temple.

4.However, considering the special facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is permitted to remove the asbestos roofing and the solar panel, if they are available. The petitioner will have to give a formal request letter to the respondent. If the aforesaid 2 items are available, under the supervision of the respondent, the men engaged with the petitioner may dismantle and remove the same.

5.This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top