L.Lakshmanan vs The Joint Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 11439 Mad

                                                                                         W.P.No..12077of 2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED:07.06.2021

                                                            Coram

                                        The Honourable Mr. Justice V.PARTHIBAN

                                                W.P.No.12077 of 2021
                                                        and
                                             WMP NoS.12852 & 12853 of 2021


                     L.Lakshmanan                                                    ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                     1. The Joint Commissioner,
                        The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments,
                        Balasundaram Road,
                        Coimbatore – 641 018.

                     2. The Assistant Commissioner,
                        The Tamil Nadu Hindu & Religious & Charitable Endowments,
                        Jawan Bhavan, Gandhiji Road,
                        Erode – 638 001.

                     3. The Executive Engineer,
                        Arulmigu Sellandi Amman Temple,
                        Savandapur,
                        Gobichettipalayam Taluk,
                        Erode District.                                            ....Respondents

                               Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to

                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                       W.P.No..12077of 2021


                     the lease termination notice issued by the 3rd respondent dated 08.02.2016
                     disobeying the Hon'ble High Court order in the admission stage of Second
                     Appeal No.1289 of 2014 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and
                     ultravires and consequently direct the respondents to render the pending
                     lease amount details and collect the same for the lease HR & CE property in
                     Survey No.100/1, Mevani Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk measuring
                     about 1.76 acres attached to Savandapur Sellandi Amman Temple.
                               For Petitioner        .. Mr.A.Manoj Kumar

                               For Respondents      .. Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar
                                                        Spl.Govt.Pleader

                                                         ORDER

The matter is taken up through web hearing.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the cultivating tenant for

more than 40 years in the property belonging to HR & CE Department. In

2010, a termination of lease notice was given to the petitioner land.

According to him, no opportunity was given to him to explain and

subsequently, an auction was conducted for the property. The termination

was issued on the ground that the petitioner had illegally removed sand

from the property. In the auction conducted, one third party, by name

Thangan, was inducted as a lessee. The petitioner herein filed a suit for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No..12077of 2021

permanent injunction in O.S.No.174/2010 before the District Munsif Court,

Gobichettipalayam restraining the lessee of the Department from interfering

with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the

plaintiff/petitioner.

3. Before the trial Court, the then Executive Officer of the 3 rd

respondent Temple filed a compromise memo stating that they had no

objection for decreeing the suit as prayed for by the petitioner herein. A

decree was passed on the basis of the compromise memo on 01.07.2013 in

O.S.No.174/2010.

4. While the matter stood thus, subsequently, the temple authority

resiled their stand and filed A.S.No.5 of 2013 before the Subordinate Judge,

Gobichettipalayam, against the compromise decree of the trial Court.

However, the said Appeal was dismissed by confirming the decree of the

trial Court. As against which, Second Appeal in S.A.No.1289/2014 was

filed before this Court. This Court, dismissed the Second Appeal on

09.01.2015. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment in Second

Appeal, this Court has held as follows:

10. In my considered opinion, the Courts below have

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No..12077of 2021

rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the cultivating tenant and his possession is lawful and the same should not be disturbed by these defendants. Thus, I do not find any substantial question of law involve din this second appeal warranting admission of the same. At the same time, I should clarify that if really, the temple authorities have got any ground to terminate the lease agreement of the plaintiff, they can very well do so after following the procedure prescribed under section 34 B of the Act and then proceed in accordance with law.

5. Thereafter, the respondent issued another notice dated 08.02.2016

terminating the lease granted in favour of the petitioner and the said notice

is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. According to the

petitioner, he has filed E.P.No.25/2016 against the 1st respondent for not

implementing the trial Court injunction order and when the evidence has

been taken recently, the Executive Officer representing the respondent

deposed that notice of termination has already been issued on 08.02.2016.

Hence, the petitioner is constrained to challenge the notice in the present

writ petition.

6. According to the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner,

the termination notice dated 08.02.2016 is contrary to the judgment and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No..12077of 2021

decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed in Second Appeal by this

Court and therefore, the same has to be quashed. According to the learned

counsel, when permanent injunction has been granted in favour of the

petitioner restraining the defendants from dispossessing and causing

interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the property, the impugned

notice amounts to Contempt of Court. Learned counsel would also submit

that the 3rd respondent, by issuing termination notice dated 08.02.2016, is

attempting to set aside the Civil Court decree as confirmed by this Hon'ble

Court in S.A.No.1289/2014 dated 09.01.2015.

7. This Court considered the submission of the learned counsel but is

not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the grounds raised in the writ

petition.

8. According to the learned counsel, the impugned notice is contrary

to the judgment of this Court in Second Appeal which factually is not

correct. In fact, as could be seen in the extracted portion of the observation

of this Court in the Second Appeal, it has been clearly observed that the

authority can very well take action for terminating the lease by following

the procedure prescribed under the provisions of H.R & C.E. Act. Taking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No..12077of 2021

que from such observation, the notice was issued subsequently, on

08.02.2016 by the authority concerned. Therefore, this Court does not find

any infirmity in the notice issued to the petitioner. What is more strange is

that the petitioner who had been issued with the notice as early as in

February, 2016, has not questioned the same for more than 5 years without

any valid reasons. The only reason that is mentioned in the affidavit is that

recently E.P. filed against the Department, the Department representative

has given some evidence regarding the termination notice by misleading the

EP Court, which explanation is hardly convincing for this Court to condone

the laches. The grounds raised in the affidavit hardly merit any serious

consideration for accepting the challenge. The petitioner ought to have

responded to the impugned notice by raising whatever legal or factual

objections and merely because there is a decree of the Civil Court in respect

of the earlier cause of action in 2010 such injunction cannot permanently

bind the department from initiating fresh action on the basis of different set

of facts and circumstances.

9. In any event, the petitioner ought to have responded to the notice

promptly but he cannot be allowed to leisurely challenge the notice dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No..12077of 2021

8.2.2016 in 2021 after a period of 5 years. The explanation sought to be

given in the affidavit does not carry any conviction with this Court. This

Court is therefore of the considered view that the writ petition is hit by

laches and therefore, it has to be rejected as not maintainable. However, this

Court would clarify that it is open to the petitioner to give his objections to

the notice, if any dispute subsists as between the parties.

10. With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

07.06.2021

vsi Index:yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

To

1. The Joint Commissioner, The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, The Tamil Nadu Hindu & Religious & Charitable Endowments, Jawan Bhavan, Gandhiji Road, Erode – 638 001.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No..12077of 2021

V.PARTHIBAN,J.

Vsi

3. The Executive Engineer, Arulmigu Sellandi Amman Temple, Savandapur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District.

W.P.No.12077 of 2021

07.06.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/