Madras High Court
V.Marichamy Naidu vs The Executive Officer on 1 November, 2021
W.P.(MD)Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.11.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(MD)Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.16300 to 16303,16305, 16307, 16308, 16309,
16310 of 2021
W.P(MD).No.19606 of 2021
V.Marichamy Naidu ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Puttu Urchava Vagaiyara
Kattalai,
Arulmighu Sokkanathar Thirukovil,
Puttuthoppu, Madurai-625 016. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
impugned orders of the respondent dated 26.07.2021, 20.09.2021 and
07.10.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the
respondent to re-fix the fair rent in accordance with the law.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan (in all writ petitions)
For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanan (in all writ petitions)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioner assails an
order of refixation of fair rent with effect from 01.07.2016.
Consequential orders for initiation of proceedings under Sections 78 and
79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959 (the Act of 1959) are also under challenge.
2. The respective petitioner assails the order of refixation of fair
rent primarily on the ground that such fair rent has been refixed with
retrospective effect. By relying upon an order passed in N.Gurusamy
Nadar and Others v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department, 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 167, it is contended that
the Court categorically held that fixation of fair rent with retrospective
effect is impermissible in law. Therefore, the respective petitioner
contends that the impugned order of refixation of fair rent is
unsustainable. Although an appellate remedy is provided for under
Section 34A(3) of the Act of 1959, it is submitted that these writ petitions
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021
are maintainable in view of the failure of the respondent to take into
account the above mentioned order. The respective petitioner also
contends that great prejudice would be caused if these writ petitions are
not entertained inasmuch as the proviso to Section 34A(5) mandates that
the refixed rent should be paid and satisfactory proof thereof submitted
before an appeal is entertained.
3. On the contrary, the respondent submits that the constitutional
validity of Section 34A of the Act of 1959, including in particular, the
proviso to Section 34A(5) was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court
in the judgment in Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and
Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Adimanaiveal House Owners
Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2009-3-L.W.728. Therefore, it is
submitted that the present writ petitions are not maintainable.
4. Upon considering the rival contentions, it should be noted that a
statutory remedy is provided for. In addition, there are disputed questions
of fact as to whether the delay in fixation of fair rent is attributable to the
respective petitioner as contended by the respondent. In these
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021
circumstances, the respective petitioner is not entitled to discretionary
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and should avail of the
statutory remedy. At the same time, the contention of the respective
petitioner that the order of this Court, which was reported in 2018 (3)
MWN (Civil) 167, has not been taken into consideration by the
respondent is a contention that warrants consideration. Therefore, the
appellate authority shall take the same into account while disposing of
the appeals. In addition, it is just and necessary that the appeals be
disposed of expeditiously.
5. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of by
permitting the respective petitioner to present an appeal before the
Commissioner in terms of Section 34A(3) of the Act of 1959. The
respective petitioner is permitted to present such appeals within four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such appeals are
presented within the said time limit, the Commissioner is directed to
receive such appeals and dispose of the same on merits within a period of
two months from the date of receipt thereof without going into the
question of limitation. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021
connected W.M.P(MD).Nos.16300 to 16303,16305, 16307, 16308,
16309, 16310 of 2021 are closed.
01.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pkn
To
The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Puttu Urchava Vagaiyara
Kattalai,
Arulmighu Sokkanathar Thirukovil,
Puttuthoppu, Madurai-625 016.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
pkn
W.P.(MD)Nos.19606 to 19615 of 2021
01.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
