Madras High Court
M/S.Rajam Hotels P. Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 October, 2021
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
M/s.Rajam Hotels P. Ltd.,
Rep. By is Authorized Signatory -
Mr.C.Gabriel,
No.14, Aziz Nagar 2nd Street,
Kodambakkam,
Chennai – 600 024. .. Appellant
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswami Thirukoil &
Arulmigu Venugopalswami Thirukoil,
Office at Arulmigu Varadarajaperumal Koil,
Poonamallee.
Page 1 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
5.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. .. Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 07.10.2021 in W.P.No.31132 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy
For Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram,
Advocate-General
assisted by
Mr.D.Ravichander,
Government Advocate
for R1 to R3 and R5
Mr.A.K.Sriram for R4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made by the writ petitioner to the
order passed by learned Single Judge dated 07 October, 2021, in
W.P.No.31132 of 2013.
2. We have heard learned Senior Advocate for the appellant,
learned Advocate-General for the State Authorities and learned
advocate for the original fourth respondent, at length.
Page 2 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
3. Learned advocate for the appellant/ petitioner has submitted
that, challenge in the writ petition was to the demand notice dated 01
August, 2013 issued by State Authorities and the appellant/ petitioner
could not have been worse of than loosing in the petition in toto.
Without prejudice to this, learned advocate for the appellant has
further submitted that the rejection of the petition qua impugned
notice dated 01, August, 2013 is also erroneous. It is further
submitted that the impugned order travels much beyond the scope of
the petition since the petitioner is directed to make payment not only
to the State Authorities but also to the fourth respondent, which was
not the point at issue in the petition. It is further submitted that over
and above the payment to the State Authorities and the fourth
respondent, the impugned order further prejudices the case of the
appellant, which was not within the scope of the petition. It is noted
that learned advocate for the appellant has taken this Court through
the pleadings and has also referred to various provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to make
his case good, to contend that the impugned order calls for
interference. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
Page 3 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
4.1. Learned Advocate-General has submitted, by referring to
paras 14 and 15 of the impugned order that, though the cause of
action for the petitioner was the demand notice issued by State
Authorities dated 01 August, 2013, since the appellant had invoked the
writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the learned Single Judge is justified in going into other
connected questions, including lack of bonafide on the part of the
appellant. It is submitted that no interference be made by this Court.
4.2. Learned Advocate-General has further submitted that the
appellant has attempted to take advantage of the dispute between the
State Authorities and the fourth respondent inter-se with regard to the
title over the land in question, but that has nothing to do with the
demand notice impugned in the petition or the demand notice dated
26 June, 2013 issued by the Temple. It is submitted that no
interference be made by this Court. It is also submitted that the
appellant/ petitioner has not approached with clean hands and this
appeal be dismissed.
Page 4 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
5. Learned advocate for the fourth respondent has submitted
that, though the fourth respondent has its own say whose land it is,
and for that aspect the fourth respondent and the State Authorities
may not be on the same page, however, so far the claim of the
appellant is concerned, the rejection of his petition may not be
interfered with by this Court. Learned advocate for the fourth
respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court to the grounds
mentioned in the memo of appeal and para 5 of the counter to contend
that the appeal not only lacks merit it also lacks bonafide. It is
submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:-
6.1. The challenge in the writ petition was to the notice dated 01
August, 2013 demanding Rs.1,08,69,423/- by the State Authorities
from the present appellant/writ petitioner was principally on the
ground that, before the said demand notice, the appellant should have
been heard and additionally on the ground that the calculation was
erroneous. The demand notice of the year 2013 has been pending for
Page 5 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
all these years. The aspect of prejudice to the appellant is taken note
of by learned Single Judge and the same is appropriately answered in
the impugned order itself, after taking into account the explanation of
the petitioner qua that notice. We are in agreement with the
conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge that in the present case,
not only there was no necessity to issue any show-cause notice before
raising demand, no prejudice is caused to the appellant in that regard.
We find that, in the facts which are noted in the impugned order, the
learned Single Judge cannot be said to have fallen in any error which
may call for any interference in an intra-court appeal. The challenge to
the order of learned Single Judge to that extent is rejected and the
impugned order dated 07 October, 2021 is confirmed to the extent of
rejecting the petition, challenging the notice dated 01 August, 2013
issued by the State Authorities demanding an amount of
Rs.1,08,69,423/- from the petitioner.
7. We accept the argument of learned advocate for the appellant
that, over and above rejecting the petition qua the impugned demand
notice dated 01 August, 2013, the impugned order further contains
observations, findings and directions against the appellant. This
grievance can be grouped under two heads. Firstly, in para 22 of the
Page 6 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
impugned order, there is direction that, over and above paying the
amount as asked for by the State Authorities vide notice dated 01
August, 2013, the appellant shall make further payment to the fourth
respondent pursuant to its notice dated 26 June, 2013. Secondly,
there are other observations/ findings against the appellant.
8. So far the first of the above two parts is concerned, we find
that, while rejecting the petition qua the demand notice issued by the
Government dated 01 August, 2013, the appellant could not have been
further directed to make payment to the fourth respondent pursuant to
its notice dated 26 June, 2013. According to us, the impugned order
calls for correction to that extent.
9. So far other observations, findings and directions issued by
learned Single Judge are concerned, though prima facie it may appear
that, that was beyond the scope of petition, since the appellant had
invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, when there was material on record, it ought to
have been taken note of, which learned Single Judge did and the
consequences thereof cannot be said to be an error which may call for
interference in an intra-court appeal. It would not be proper for us to
Page 7 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
interfere in any of that part of the impugned order. While not
interfering in the impugned order (except to the extent as indicated in
para 6.2.1 above) it is noted that, we have taken into consideration
the findings as noted in paras 14 and 15 of the impugned order, which
learned Advocate-General has specifically referred to, so also para 5 of
the counter of the fourth respondent.
9.1. Paras 14 and 15 of impugned order read as under:-
“14. From the narrative thus far, learned TN HR & CE State
counsel and learned Revenue State counsel as well as
learned counsel for said temple submit in one voice that the
writ petitioner is taking advantage of the tussle between
Revenue Department and -Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious &
Charitable Endowments Department- (hereinafter -TN HR &
CE Dept.- for the sake of brevity) and is not paying rent to
either of them, but is in possession and occupation of vast
and valuable property i.e., demised land admeasuring 21.06
Acres (19.29 acres) and is commercially exploiting the same
by running a hotel and an amusement theme park that too
on the teeth of aforementioned Civil Court decree that the
demised land should not be used for any purpose other than
agricultural activity. This court is informed that this civil
court decree made in aforementioned appeal suit under
section 96 of CPC has been given legal quietus by parties /
attained finality and is operating. In other words, this court
is informed without any disputation or disagreement that
this decree in the appeal suit has not been further assailed
Page 8 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
either by way of second appeal under section 100 of CPC in
this court or in any other manner.
15. As already alluded to supra, while the writ
petitioner company has chosen to respond to the impugned
notice in and by a detailed reply dated 10.09.2013, it has
chosen to neither respond nor comply qua 26.06.2013
notice from said temple. The respondents- counsel i.e., the
two State Counsel and counsel for said temple, make
submissions in this regard in unison in one voice and the
burden of the song is whenever there is a demand of rent
from the Revenue Department, writ petitioner says it is a
tenant/lessee under said temple and when said temple
makes a demand, there is neither response nor compliance.
The writ petitioner is thus squatting on demised property
and commercially exploiting it without paying rent though
(on a demurrer) the lease under said temple expired /
elapsed in June of 1997.”
9.2. Para 5 of the counter of the fourth respondent reads as
under:-
“5. I state, that the lease was granted for agricultural
purposes and since the said D.Selvaraj and 3 Others
attempted to utilize it for different purposes, i.e., they made
an attempt to build a swimming pool and other recreational
facilities in the said place and so this Respondent filed a suit
in O.S.No.427/1997 on the file of the Principal District
Munsiff Court, Poonamallee with a prayer of permanent
injunction and the Principal District Munsiff, by judgement
and decree dated 10.12.2008 decreed the suit 5 thereby
granting a permanent injunction restraining the said
D.Selvaraj and other from putting up the land for different
Page 9 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
use and converting the same as a recreational place. I state,
that as against this judgment and decree, the said Selvaraj
preferred an appeal in A.S.No.73/2009 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee. I state, that while the
appeal was pending, the said Selvaraj died and his legal
representatives S.Amirtharaj, S.Anandaraj and S.Rajapriya
were brought on record by an order in I.A.No.1646/2009 in
A.S.No.73 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court, Poonamallee. I
state, that the said appeal was dismissed on 30.11.2011 by
the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee confirming the
judgment and decree made by the Principal District Munsiff,
Poonamallee. I state, that the permanent injunction still
stands and the land in question cannot be put to any use
other than agriculture, for which it was leased out to
D.Selvaraj & 3 Others.”
10. On conjoint consideration of the above, we find that the
appellant has chosen to blow hot and cold together to suit his
convenience. We consider it neither necessary nor proper to protect
the appellant qua that part of the order or the consequences thereof.
While doing so, we also make it clear that we may not be understood
to have expressed any opinion with regard to the competing claims
about the title over the land in question, between the State Authorities
and the fourth respondent/Temple inter se.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
Page 10 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
11.1. The impugned order dated 07 October, 2021 is confirmed
to the extent of rejecting the petition, challenging the notice dated 01
August, 2013 issued by the State Authorities demanding an amount of
Rs.1,08,69,423/- from the petitioner.
11.2. The impugned order dated 07 October, 2021 is set aside to
the extent (directions in para 22) it directs the petitioner to make
further payment to the fourth respondent, pursuant to its demand
notice dated 26 June, 2013.
11.3. Other part of the impugned order, including the
observations and findings against the appellant, is not interfered with,
for the reasons which are noted in detail by learned Single Judge, with
the clarification that, we may not be understood to have expressed
any opinion with regard to the competing claims about the title over
the land in question, between the State Authorities and the fourth
respondent/Temple inter se.
Page 11 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
12. The writ appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.
C.M.P.No.17928 of 2021 is closed.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J.)
28.10.2021
Index:Yes/No
ssm/8
To:-
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Tahsildar,
Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswami Thirukoil &
Arulmigu Venugopalswami Thirukoil,
Office at Arulmigu Varadarajaperumal Koil,
Poonamallee.
5.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.
Page 12 Of 13
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
ssm
W.A.No.2737 of 2021
28.10.2021
Page 13 Of 13
