HR&CE authorities must number and dispose original applications under S.63(A) and S.21-A after hearing parties, upholding natural justice.

COMMON ORDER

These petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the first respondent to take on file the original applications filed by the petitioners both under Section 63(a) as well as under Section 21-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short, the Act) before the office of the first respondent, which are yet to be numbered and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice for respondents 1 and 2. In view of the limited nature of relief this Court proposes to grant, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with and the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal.

3. The case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is as follows: (i) The first petitioner is the son of one Mr.Nadesan Pillai. The said Mr.Nadesan Pillai was the absolute owner of the property in T.S.Nos.328 & 329 (old S.No. 17/2B, Block No.3, T.S.Nos.3/1 & 3/3), Salem City measuring 8000 sq.ft. He acquired it by way of a release deed dated 22.4.1981 registered as doc.No.1766 of 1981 on the file of the Sub- Registrar concerned. Under the release deed, the executants unequivocally conveyed and released all their undivided share, right, title and interest over the subject propety in favour of the said Mr.Nadesan Pillai.

(ii) After the demise of the said Mr.Nadesan Pillai on 13.3.1985, the subject property devolved upon his legal heirs including the first petitioner. The second petitioner is closely associated with the family of the first petitioner for several decades and has been managing the day-to- day affairs, poojas, festivals and maintenance of the temple situated in the subject property continuously and uninterruptedly with the express consent, approval and authority of the first petitioner and the other legal heirs of the said Mr.Nadesan Pillai.

(iii) The foundation of Sri Subramanyar & Vinayagar temple was laid on 18.1.1965 in the presence of the first petitioner, the elder brother of the second petitioner and the local residents. Such a participation did not confer any right, title or interest whatsoever over the subject property or the subject temple. The construction of the temple in the subject property was undertaken by the family of the first petitioner. Hence, the subject temple is a private temple and the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department does not have any right of trusteeship, management or control over the subject temple.

(iv) The first petitioner obtained an electricity service connection in his name on 16.7.2001 from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the expenses were borne by the family of the first petitioner. Since then, the subject temple has been continuously managed and maintained by the second petitioner with the express consent of the first petitioner and his other family members. Earlier, the two elder brothers of the second petitioner were managing the day-to-day affairs of the subject temple. After their demise, the second petitioner and his family members have been exclusively and continuously managing the entire day-to-day affairs of the subject temple. There is a long standing agreement to manage the subject temple with the approval of the first petitioner and his other family members.

(v) When things stood thus, on 06.1.2026, the third respondent along with some local people, unlawfully and high handedly attempted to trespass into the subject temple claiming himself to be the trustee allegedly appointed by the HR & CE Department. On account of the intervention of the neighbou