Madras High Court
R. Saravana Kumar vs The Commissioner on 1 November, 2021
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.11.2021
:CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
R. Saravana Kumar .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Salem.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Dharmapuri.
4. D.C. Pandurangan
5. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
144 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
(R5 suo motu impleaded as per order of this Court
dated 01.11.2021) .... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/3
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 st Respondent to remove the
encroachments made upon the temple property of Arulmigu Shri Angala Amman
Temple situated at Velipettai Street, Dharmapuri 636 701 by considering the Petitioner
representation dated 28.06.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Jayaprakash
For Respondents : Mr.K.V. Sajeev Kumar for R1 to R3
Government Counsel
ORDER
(Order of this Court was made by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J)
The Writ Petition has been filed, seeking direction to the First Respondent to
remove the encroachments made upon the temple property of Arulmigu Shri Angala
Amman Temple situated at Velipettai Street, Dharmapuri 636 701 by considering the
Petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2021.
2. Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar, learned Government counsel takes notice for
Respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse orders are passed in this Writ Petition, against the
fourth respondent, notice with respect to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.
3. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up and disposed of in the stage of
admission itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
4. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is the devotte of Arulmigu Shri
Angala Amman Temple situated at Velipettai Street, Dharmapuri District, which falls
under the control of the First Respondent. It is further stated that the said temple
belongs to the family of one Late Vediyappa Chettiyar, who have been carrying on
various activities and in the year 1938, few portions of the lands were given for
charitable purpose and the portion of land that was given for charity purpose had been
encroached illegally by the fourth respondent and his family members by constructing
shopping complex and residential houses in the said land. In this regard, the petitioner
sent a representation dated 28.06.2021 to the respondents to remove the illegal
encroachments made upon the temple land. Since, no action has been taken till date, the
petitioner has come forward with this Writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions
made, the Second Respondent who is the competent authority to ascertain the
encroachment is directed to ascertain and take decision on the alleged encroachment,by
using the drone technology, after affording opportunity of hearing to the fourth
respondent as well as the persons concerned, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court makes it clear that if any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
encroachment is found to be made by the fourth respondent, the electricity connection
with respect to the fourth respondent shall be disconnected in the light of the Judgment
of the Division Bench in "P.Selvarajan Vs. The Commissioner of Municipal
Administration, Chennai and others" (W.P.No. 21639 of 2017) decided on 13.02.2018
, following the order of the Supreme Court dated 05.01.2018, passed in Special Leave
to Appeal (C) No. 33863 of 2017, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows:
“3. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted
that the fourth respondent has made an application for regularisation and
that during the pendency of the proceedings, this Court, by order dated
11.09.2017, directed disconnection of electricity in respect of basement,
second and third floors of the fourth respondent's premises, against which,
the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C).No.26509 of 2017, by order dated
13.10.2017, did not interfere with the said order of this Court dated
11.09.2017, and permitted the fourth respondent herein to move the High
Court. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the fourth respondent
herein has filed W.M.P.No.30495 of 2017 seeking direction to the
TANGEDCO to restore the electricity connection to the building of the
fourth respondent. This Court, by order dated 07.11.2017, rejected the
restoration of electricity supply. Thereafter, once again the matter was
taken up to the Supreme Court by the fourth respondent, and the Supreme
Court, by order dated 05.01.2018 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
(C) No.33863 of 2017, has dismissed the Special Leave Petition, by
observing as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
impugned order dated 07.11.2017 passed in WMP.No.30495/2017
passed by the Madras High Court.
We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and
accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
However, we direct the authority concerned before whom the
application for regularisation under the DTCP Building
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
Regularisation Scheme 2017 is pending to decide the matter in
accordance with law within two months.
Pending application stands disposed of."
Thus, in the said order dated 05.01.2018, the Supreme Court directed that
the authority concerned before whom the application for regularisation
under the DTCP Building Regularisation Scheme, 2017, is pending, to
decide the matter in accordance with law within two months.
4. In this case, it is seen that there is no proper set-back left by the
fourth respondent while constructing the building. There is also no proper
ventilation as required under Rule 14(2) of the Tamil Nadu District
Municipalities Building Rules, 1972. The fourth respondent has combined
both the buildings as single unit without the permission from the Attur
Municipality.
5. It is not in dispute that the building has been constructed by the
fourth respondent in violation of the plan. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that the building has got to be constructed without any
violation of the plan. In view of the same, we are of the view that the
violated portion(s) will have to be demolished, as it is not in accordance
with the sanctioned plan."
7. The First Bench of this Court (S.K.Kaul,C.J., and R.Mahadevan,J.) in
Contempt Petition No.1769 of 2015 and Contempt Petition No.2166 of 2015 (Suo
motu), took up a matter pertaining to demolition of the violated portions of a
building and insisted that the unauthorised constructions are decimated. Relevant
portion of the said order reads thus:
''4.We have also perused the report of the Commissioner, who is present in
Court. We have impressed upon him the importance of ensuring that there
is atleast no continuing unauthorised construction by issuing stop work
notices immediately when such unauthorised construction is detected
rather than waiting for comparison of the plans. We have also emphasised
the importance of:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
(a) Checking the buildings from the basement, ground floor
onwards, so that the set backs are adhered to;
(b) Ensure that the on-going construction complies with the norms;
(c)The delinquent officers are brought to book not by mere
censure, stoppage of increment, but by more severe consequences like
compulsory retirement and dismissal from service. We say so, as despite,
mammoth amount of unauthorised construction, we are informed that
not a single person has suffered the punishment of dismissal from
service or even compulsory retirement atleast for the last five years.
(d) Not to let any unnecessary interference with his work by the
persons, who have nothing to do with his job and that he should be able to
do his task without fear or favour, for which necessary Court protection is
available.''
8. For carrying out the aforesaid exercise, this Court suo motu impleads 'The
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., 144 Anna
Salai, Chennai 600 002' as 5th Respondent in the Writ Petition.
9. The 5th Respondent is directed to intimate the concerned authorities of the
TANGEDCO, to disconnect the electricity connection of the fourth respondent, if any
encroachment is found to be made, after hearing the parties concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
10. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs.
[S.V.N,J.,] [R.V,J.,]
01.11.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order /Non speaking order
arr
To
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Salem.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Dharmapuri.
4. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
144 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.,
arr
W.P.No.23451 of 2021
01.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
