Madras High Court
M.Shanmugarajan vs The Commissioner on 13 July, 2021
W.A.Nos.1615,1613,1619,1614,1616 and 1617 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.Nos.1615, 1613, 1619, 1614, 1616 and 1617 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos.10067, 10066, 10068, 10065, 10063, 10085, 10070,
10083, 10074, 10071 and 10072 of 2021
W.A.No.1615 of 2021
M.Shanmugarajan .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
H.R & C.E. Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
No.1, West Chithirai Street,
Madurai - 625 001.
3.Chairman of the Trustees
Arulmigu Sithanathaswamy Thirukoil,
Ramasamy Asari Lane,
South Veli Street,
Madurai - 625 001. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.1615,1613,1619,1614,1616 and 1617 of 2021
Prayer in W.A.No.1615 of 2021: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent against the order dated 11.11.2020 made in W.P.No.860
of 2011.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Elizabeth Ravi
in all cases
For Respondents : Mr.S.John J Raja Singh
Government Counsel
for R1 and R2 in all cases
Mr.V.Srikanth for R3 in all cases
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
All these appeals arise out of the common order and therefore,
they have been taken up for hearing and disposed of by a common
judgment.
2. The appellants herein, claiming to be the tenants of the
respondent/temple, filed writ petitions challenging the impugned order
dated 23.11.2010 invoking Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The aforesaid impugned
order was passed on the revision petitions filed by the appellants
against the common order passed by the second respondent in
exercise of power conferred under Section 78(4) of the HR&CE Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.1615,1613,1619,1614,1616 and 1617 of 2021
3. After hearing the appellants, the second respondent while
giving a finding that the lease granted expired long time back and the
rent having not been paid, the appellants are declared as encroachers
and thus directed them to hand over the possession. Challenging the
aforesaid common order passed, revision petitions have been filed by
the appellants in R.P.Nos. 50 to 56 of 2008. Taking note of the fact that
there was no material to hold that the properties were actually let out
by the trustee contrary to the provisions of the Act, and, therefore,
without obtaining appropriate permission coupled with the lack of
renewal, the finding rendered by the second respondent that they are
the encroachers was confirmed by the revisional authority. It has also
been recorded that the report of the Assistant Commissioner was
taken into consideration and there is no basis for continuing the
appellants any longer.
4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, inter alia,
holding that the very lease granted by themselves do not conform to
the provisions of the Act, no right is created in favour of the
appellants. Reliance has been made on Section 77 of the Act. That
position being admitted and the occupation of premises by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.1615,1613,1619,1614,1616 and 1617 of 2021
appellants being within the temple precincts, the learned Single Judge
found that the reasoning of respondents 1 and 2 is perfectly in order.
Aggrieved over the dismissal of the writ petitions, the present appeals
have been filed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. It
has been submitted that the appellants being in possession for quite
number of years, they should be treated as tenants even otherwise.
6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. We are dealing with the cases where the
factual findings have been rendered by the second respondent as
confirmed by the first respondent. Learned Single Judge found that the
very permission granted in the name of so-called lease being contrary
to the enactment by the erstwhile trustee, no right is created. We also
find that even the so-called lease has expired and there is also arrears
of rent. Thus, looking from any perspective, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the orders passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.1615,1613,1619,1614,1616 and 1617 of 2021
7. We do not know as to how the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act would apply to the cases on hand. Thus, we are not in a
position to uphold the submissions made as against the findings
rendered by respondents 2 and 1, leading to the orders of eviction.
8. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
submitted that taking into consideration the long possession, sufficient
time may be granted, we are not inclined to accede to the said request
in view of the categorical statement made by the learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent that the possession has been taken
pursuant to the order of dismissal passed by the learned Single Judge
on 26.02.2021, which factum is not denied or disputed.
9. In such view of the matter, the writ appeals stand dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
13.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.1615,1613,1619,1614,1616 and 1617 of 2021
To
1.The Commissioner,
H.R & C.E. Department,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
No.1, West Chithirai Street,
Madurai - 625 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.Nos.1615,1613,1619,1614,1616 and 1617 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.Nos.1615,1613,1619,
1614,1616 and 1617 of 2021
13.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
