Madras High Court
Murugammal vs The Joint Commissioner on 4 June, 2021
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :04.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
Murugammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Office of the Joint Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Thiruvanthapuram Road,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Deputy Commissioner,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Thiruvanthapuram Road,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to number and dispose the petition dated 03.07.2017 and
filed on 06.07.2017 filed by petitioner under Section 63 of Hindu
Religious Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 on merits.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thillak Kumar,
Standing Counsel for Government
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
ORDER
Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Government,
accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.
2. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the
admission stage itself.
3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to number
and dispose the petition dated 03.07.2017 and filed on 06.07.2017 filed
by petitioner under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959
4. The case of the petitioner is that Sri Subramaniaswami Temple,
Tiruchendur, claimed that it is the absolute owner of the properties of
Nanja and Punja Lands in Patta No.277, Kumarapuram Village,
Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli Jilla and cancelled the lease deed which
was executed in favour of one Arasammal. But, the properties originally
belonged to the family of one Sivasubramaniapillai and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
Vallinayagampillai. The petitioner's father, Vallimayil Nadar entered into
a permanent lease agreement in respect of the disputed properties, with
the said Sivasubramaniapillai and Vallinayagampillai on 24.01.1951 and
the disputed properties belonged to the lessor ancestrally, which is
evidenced by the partition deed dated 31.03.1915 in their family.
According to the petitioner, the partition deed specifically states that a
Kattalai was created in favour of the Temple by the ancestors and only a
portion of income from the properties were to be utilized for the purpose
of conducting a few festivals in the Temple and therefore the petitioner
claimed that only a limited charge was created in favour of the Temple,
not the entire property. As per the lease agreement, permanent lessee was
for performing Kattalai for which portion of income from the properties
for the Temple was used and the remaining portion of income was
retained by the permanent lessors. According to the petitioner, the said
Arasammal and herself are the legal heirs of the Vallimayil Nadar, who
died about 40 years ago. After demise of her father, they are the
permanent lessees, as per the partition deed dated 24.01.1951, which was
executed in favour of her father by the said Sivasubramaniapillai and
Vallinayagampillai. Patta was wrongly mutated in the name of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
Temple during UDR proceedings. The property register of the Temple
does not include the disputed properties and it does not show that the
temple was in possession and enjoyment of the property either directly or
through the tenants prior to the lease deed executed by Arasammal. Most
of the lands were dry, so water from the well could be drawn easily.
Therefore, electricity service connection was found to be absolutely
necessary for irrigation of lands. When Arasammal approached the EB
officials seeking electricity service connection, the EB officials directed
her to approach the temple authorities for obtaining no objection
certificate. Only for the purpose of getting electricity service connection,
Arasammal executed a lease deed in favour of the temple and this lease
deed does not vest title to the property in temple. According to the
petitioner, Arasammal and herself filed two suits in O.S.No.38 of 2008
and O.S.No.16 of 2012 before the Principal District Munsif Court,
Valliyoor. The temple filed its written statements denying the title of the
permanent lessors Sivasubramaniapillai and Vallinayagampillai.
According to the petitioner, the temple blindly claimed that the disputed
properties belonged to temple. The Principal District Munsif Court,
Valliyoor, dismissed both the suits holding that the civil Court has no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
jurisdiction to decide the questions whether (i) a mere charge has been
created over the properties in favour of the temple or absolute title and
(ii) absolute dedication was made in favour of temple in the Kattalai.
However, there is no kattalai deed in writing. The nature and character
of kattalai have been culled out only from the partition deed and the
permanent lease deed and the First Appellate Court has also confirmed
the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The petitioner filed a petition
on 06.07.2017 under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959 seeking reliefs. The said petition was repeatedly
returned on several occasions stating that the Kattalai deed was not
produced. Finally, once again the petitioner represented the petition on
02.06.2019, but the respondents have neither returned the petition nor
numbered sofar. Hence, this Writ Petition came to be filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the
petition has been filed under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the petition has not been
numbered till date. It has been returned several times and the petitioner
has been repeatedly representing the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would state
that now, the competent authority to consider the petition is the Joint
Commissioner, Tuticorin.
7. Since the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would
state that the competent authority is the Joint Commissioner (HRNC),
Tuticorin, the respondents are directed to return the papers to the
petitioner, so that the petitioner shall represent the same before the Joint
Commissioner (HRNC), Tuticorin and on representation, the Joint
Commissioner (HRNC), Tuticorin shall pass appropriate orders, on
merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from
the date of filing of the petition by the petitioner before him.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
No Costs.
04.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:-
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Office of the Joint Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Thiruvanthapuram Road,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Deputy Commissioner,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Thiruvanthapuram Road,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Joint Commissioner (HRNC),
Tuticorin.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
sm
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.9613 of 2021
04.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
