Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2032
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VELMURUGAN, B. PUGALENDHI, JJ.
Kongu Educational Trust, Rep. by its Chairman M. Nachimuthu - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department – Respondent
WA(MD)Nos.110, 111 of 2022 and CMP(MD)Nos.1129, 1130 of 2022
Decided On : 27-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Lease Agreements
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellant : Mr. B. Saravanan, Senior Counsel for M/s. V.S. Usharani.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Subbaraj, Special Government Pleader, Mr. A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsel for Mr. P. Aathimoola Pandian.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case involving disputes over temple land lease. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. legal grounds for the appeal presented by the appellant. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court observations on the validity of subleasing and applicable legal provisions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. conclusion and directives for compliance with leasing regulations. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
COMMON ORDER :
Background:-
Kongu Educational Trust, the appellant herein, is in occupation of 7.81 Acres of land in S.No.269/A of Kadhapparai Village, Karur Taluk, which belongs to Arulmighu Balasubramani Temple, Vennaimalai. This temple is a public religious temple under the control of the HR and CE Department and administered by a Trustee and an Executive Officer appointed under section 45(1) of the HR and CE Act.
2.The appellant has filed two writ petitions before this Court. WP(MD)No.17092 of 2016 was filed as against the communication of the fourth respondent / Executive Officer of the Temple dated 02.12.2015 and 28.06.2016. WP(MD)No.19582 of 2016 was filed as against the proceedings of the Joint Committee and the consequent order passed by the Joint Commissioner dated 12.02.2015 fixing lease rent. These writ petitions were dismissed by a common order dated 19.01.2022 that this appellant, a sub lessee, cannot maintain the writ petitions and that the alleged sub lease is without any authority and against the provisions under Section 34 of the HR and CE Act. As against this common order dated 19.01.2022, these writ appeals are filed by the appellant.
3.The appellant Educational Trust is running a School at Kadhapparai Village, Karur Taluk and is using the temple’s land as its playground. Apart from that, the Trust is also having a marriage hall and this temple’s land is used for car parking. The appellant Trust admits that the subject land is the land of the Temple and claims that they got the sub lease by way of a registered document dated 19.06.1995 from the legal heirs of one Ramasamy. The appellant trust claim that they have paid a sum of Rs. 1380/- towards the lease rent initially and Rs.1535/- from 2009 and it was increased to Rs.4130/- from 2010. The Joint Commissioner, by the order impugned in WP(MD)No.19582 of 2016, has increased the lease rent from Rs.4130/- to Rs.2,04,122/- per month. Therefore, the appellant has challenged this order of the Joint Commissioner fixing the rent by hiking 50 times of the rent which has already been fixed. The communication of the Executive Officer dated 02.12.2015 and 28.06.2016 were challenged in the other writ petition. Both were dismissed by common order dated19.01.2022.
4.The primary contention of the appellant in both the writ petitions was that the lease rent has been fixed without issuing any notice to this appellant and therefore, the same needs to be set aside on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple Adimanaivael House Owners Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2009) 6 CTC 512]. A further ground was taken that the lease rent was hiked by 50 times without considering the fact that the appellant Trust is running an educational institution.
5.The case of the appellant was negatived by the writ Court holding that this appellant cannot take advantage of the decision in Angalaparameswari’s case, inasmuch as this appellant is not a tenant of the respondent Temple. There is no lease deed between the Temple and this appellant and even according to the appellant, this appellant has obtained this property by way of a sub lease from the legal heirs of one Ramasamy, a lessee of the Temple. The writ Court held that the legal heirs of late Ramasamy had no authority to sub-let this land to the appellant and that too for a period of thirty long years, de hors the provision under Section 34 of the HR and CE Act.
6.The writ Court further held that as per Section 34, t
