Madras High Court
S.Selvarani vs The Commissioner on 5 August, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Writ Petition (MD) No.22820 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19116 and 19117 of 2017
S.Selvarani,
Chairman, Board of Trustees,
Arulmigu Muruga Ayyanar Temple,
Veerakudi,
Thiruchili Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Sivagangai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Virudhunagar.
4.V.Rakkavelar .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in pursuant to the
impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.876/2012/A1,
dated 06.12.2017 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkitachalapathy
For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.T.Thiraivam
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.T.Vadivelan
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the Chairman, Board of Trustees of Arulmigu
Muruga Ayyanar Temple, Veerakudi, Thiruchili Taluk, Virudhunagar District,
challenging the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.
876/2012/A1, dated 06.12.2017, filed this Writ Petition.
2.The contention of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent indulged
in several activities against the interest of the Temple. Further, on the
complaint made to the respondents 1 to 3, the fourth respondent was
suspended from the hereditary trustee of the Temple. When the Temple
administration called for explanation from the fourth respondent, he has given
evasive reply. Therefore, five charges were framed against the fourth
respondent under Section 53(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ''the H.R. & C.E.
Act'']. The fourth respondent refuted the charges by stating that the
petitioner/S.Selvarani, one of the hereditary trustees, had, on her own, made
complaints against him, his brother, so that they can be removed from the
hereditary trusteeship and the petitioner can control the Temple as per her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
wish. The fourth respondent had not taken away the Temple properties. If any
Temple properties identified in his name or in his father's name, the fourth
respondent is ready to reconvey the same to the Temple. Further, he had also
made allegations against the petitioner in collecting money for
Kumbabishekam without issuing receipts. Further, the petitioner after taking
over the charge as hereditary trustee, had acquired several properties and
accumulated wealth.
3.Admittedly, the petitioner made allegations against the fourth
respondent stating that the fourth respondent had obtained Pattas in the name
of his father. Further, without informing the Temple, the fourth respondent
had collected money from the temporary shops, auction of hair offerings, car
parking, daily tickets, not accounted the same to the Temple account and
thereby, caused loss to the Temple. Further, whenever the Hundial of the
Temple is opened, he would demand that he should be given a share from the
Hundial offerings. The fourth respondent had been filing several cases against
the Trustee and the Temple Officials. The fourth respondent insisted that he
should be made as Chairman, Board of Trustees. Further, charges were framed
against the fourth respondent for not attending the Board of Trustees Meetings
on several occasions. Further, making complaints against the other hereditary
trustees and also against the officials, he had also filed cases in O.S.Nos.60 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
1999, 79 of 2000 and 177 of 2001 against the interest of the Temple. Further,
without giving any representation to the second respondent/Joint
Commissioner, the fourth respondent had filed W.P.(MD)No.1185 of 2013 for
a Mandamus as if he had sent a representation and the same was pending,
which was later found to be false and actually, there was no such
representation.
4.The first respondent had conducted an enquiry and finding that out of
the five charges, three charges were proved against the fourth respondent. One
of the proven charges is that the fourth respondent had not participated in the
Trust Board Meetings and hence, he should be punished for dereliction of
duty. Further, the fourth respondent filed false cases against the petitioner
before the Court at Aruppukottai. Finding that three charges were proved, the
first respondent had given an opportunity to the fourth respondent to correct
himself. Further, considering the undertaking given by the fourth respondent
that wherever any property is shown in the name of his father, he would
reconvey the property and handover the same to the Temple authorities, his
suspension was revoked on a condition that the fourth respondent within a
period of three months to correct himself, participate in the Trust Board
Meetings and further, he should co-operate with the other hereditary trustees
for smooth functioning of the Temple. As regards his undertaking that he will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
reconvey the temple property, if it is identified that the same are standing in
the name of the fourth respondent or on his father's name, it was ordered that
he shall reconvey the property and also to take steps for change of Patta in
favour of the Temple.
5.Considering the aforesaid aspects, the first respondent/Commissioner
had revoked the suspension of the fourth respondent. According to the
petitioner, the revocation of the fourth respondent's suspension is a conditional
revocation, which the fourth respondent failed to comply with. The petitioner
has filed a revision in R.P.No.19 of 2015 before the Secretary to the
Government, on 09.10.2015 against the order of the first respondent, which is
still pending before the Government.
6.After revocation of the suspension order, the fourth respondent
involved in printing of receipt books in the name of the Temple stating that
whoever donates Rs.2,000/- for the Temple Kumbabishekam, their names will
be inscribed in the inscription and the same will be installed in the Temple.
Hence, a case in Crime No.11 of 2017 has been registered against the fourth
respondent and four others for the offences under Sections 120-B, 416, 420,
468 and 34 I.P.C. The fourth respondent had filed W.P.(MD)No.4249 of
2017, seeking to permit him to discharge his duties as hereditary trustee of the
Temple and to take appropriate action to elect the Managing Trustee of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
said Temple in accordance with law. This Court, by order dated 06.09.2017,
disposed of the said Writ Petition, directing the third respondent/Assistant
Commissioner to complete the enquiry and pass necessary orders within a
period of six weeks.
7.Thereafter, the third respondent, by his report in Na.Ka.No.
2372/15/A3, dated 27.10.2017, found that Veerakudi Revenue Village Patta
Nos.439 and 468 stand in the name of the fourth respondent. Added to it,
Patta Nos.193, 204, 210, 231, 239 and 241 are also stand in the name of the
fourth respondent. From the 'A' Register, the third respondent/Enquiry Officer
found that some of the Pattas are in the name of the fourth respondent's father
and in the name of their relatives. In O.S.No.21 of 1926 as well as in A.S.No.
186 of 1977, it is recorded that the Temple owns vast tracts of lands. Now, no
property is available with the Temple. The third respondent/Enquiry Officer
had directed the Temple authorities to co-operate with the revenue authorities
to identify the properties of the Temple and to take steps to retrieve the same.
Thus, it is clear that the fourth respondent indulged in activities against the
Temple. Thereafter, based on the enquiry report of the third
respondent/Assistant Commissioner, the second respondent/Joint
Commissioner in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.876/2012/A1, dated
06.12.2017, had revoked the suspension of the fourth respondent with certain
conditions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
8.The second respondent/Joint Commissioner though gave a finding that
the Temple earlier had 250 acres of land, the said land has now been
transferred in the name of the individuals, for which, appropriate steps have to
be taken. Further, he confirms the findings of the third respondent/Enquiry
Officer that Patta No.373 for S.Nos.169/1, 206/1, 206/10 and 206/7 stand in
the name of the fourth respondent's father. Likewise, the property in Patta
Nos.193, 204, 210, 231, 239, 241, 439 and 468 stands in the name of the
fourth respondent. The Civil Court, earlier, confirmed that all the properties in
the Village belong to the Temple, which would lead to the conclusion that the
Temple properties have now been changed in the name of the fourth
respondent, his father and relatives. Thus, the second respondent/Joint
Commissioner having found that the fourth respondent is holding the Temple
properties and not handed over the same as per the conditional order passed by
the second respondent/Joint Commissioner, ought to have suspended the
fourth respondent. Aggrieved against the same, now, for this limited purpose,
this Writ Petition has been filed.
9.Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner is the Chairman, Board of
Trustee of Arulmigu Muraga Ayyanar Temple, Veerakudi, Thiruchuli Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. The fourth respondent is the hereditary trustee, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
was earlier suspended for misappropriation of the Temple properties. The
Temple owned several properties in the Village. Now, all the properties have
been changed in the names of others. Patta No.373 for S.Nos.169/1, 206/1,
206/10 and 206/7 stand in the name of the fourth respondent's father.
Likewise, Patta Nos.439 and 468 stand in the name of the fourth respondent.
These are the Temple properties as could be seen from the Civil Court's
Judgment in O.S.No.21 of 1926 and A.S.No.186 of 1977. The fourth
respondent, after revocation of his suspension in the year 2015, during
Kumbabishekam in the year 2017, had printed receipt books in the name of the
Temple and collected huge sums of money from several persons by giving
promise that whoever offer a sum of Rs.2,000/-, their names will be inscribed
in the inscription and the same will be installed in the Temple. Further, the
fourth respondent had not re-conveyed any property and whenever notice is
issued to him to reconvey the property either he would state that he would
submit the documents before the Court through his Advocate and on the same
breadth would state that he is not in possession of any of the documents. He
was giving contradictory statements each time according to his convenience.
The fourth respondent is acting against the interest of the Temple. The third
respondent/Enquiry Officer/Assistant Commissioner confirms the same and
thereafter, the second respondent/Joint Commissioner passed the impugned
order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
10.Mr.T.Vadivelan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits
that the petitioner has got personal rivalry against the fourth respondent even
before the petitioner had been elected as Chairman, Board of Trustees and
after assumption of office as Chairman, the petitioner lodged false complaints
against the fourth respondent and also filed several cases against him. The
only endeavour of the petitioner is that to somehow keep away the fourth
respondent and his brother by making false charges from the hereditaryship, so
that, the petitioner can enjoy the Office of the hereditaryship. The petitioner
after elected as Chairman, Board of Trustees, had acquired several properties
and amassed wealth. The fourth respondent was objecting to the same and
also sending petitions in this regard. The third respondent/Enquiry
Officer/Assistant Commissioner and the second respondent/Joint
Commissioner confirmed in their reports that the petitioner is holding the
chairmanship of the Board of Trust without any election for the past two
decades or more. Even today, the fourth respondent is ready to reconvey if
any property of the Temple is identified in his name or in his father's name.
11.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further submits that
the fourth respondent has also given petitions to the District Collector,
Virudhunagar, giving the particulars of documents to transfer Patta Nos.468,
193, 204, 210, 231, 239 and 241 of Veerakudi Village from his name to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
name of the Temple. Based on the petitions received from the fourth
respondent relating to change of Patta with regard to 10 properties, the District
Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, vide his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.A2/3487/2019, dated 25.02.2019, sent a communication to the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, for further action. Further, with
regard to 5 properties, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, vide his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/29/2019, dated 11.03.2019, sent a
communication to the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli; the District Revenue Officer,
Virudhunagar, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/3489/2019, dated
29.03.2019, sent a communication to the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli, with regard to
2 properties; and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, vide his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/93/2019, dated 08.04.2019, with regard to 3
properties, sent a communication to the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli, to take further
action. The Tahsildar, Thiruchuli, by his letter dated 17.05.2019 in
O.Mu.No.A5/2443/2019, confirmed the receipt of petitions from the fourth
respondent. The fourth respondent having no parent document, had made a
request to the first respondent and the second respondent/Joint Commissioner
for the same, and it was forwarded to the petitioner and thereafter, there was
no response. Thus, the fourth respondent is taking all steps to change the Patta
in the name of the Temple. It is by the non-cooperation of the revenue and
temple authorities, the same could not be done.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
12.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it
is seen that the petitioner as a Chairman, Board of Trustees has been taking
earnest steps to retrieve the temple properties as could be seen from the Civil
Court Judgment in O.S.No.21 of 1926 and A.S.No.186 of 1977 and also from
the enquiry report of the third respondent/Assistant Commissioner. It is seen
that there are around 250 acres of land belongs to the Temple in the Veerakudi
Village. Now, no land stands in the name of the Temple. The revenue
officials are also not co-operating in submitting the revenue records. That is
the reason why, the Temple authorities are finding it difficult to retrieve the
Temple properties and certain Pattas have been identified in the name of the
fourth respondent and his father. The fourth respondent so far has not given
any explanation how these properties have been acquired by him and come to
his possession. On the other hand, he had at every instances, made a statement
that he is willing to reconvey the property of the Temple wherever it has been
identified as the Temple property. To his convenience, the fourth respondent
has been taking a stand and the third respondent/Assistant
Commissioner/Enquiry officer had clearly given a finding that the fourth
respondent owns Temple lands. The fourth respondent had contrary to the
conditional revocation of suspension order passed by the first
respondent/Commissioner, so far not conveyed any land/property of the
Temple. On the other hand, he had made applications to the revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
authorities and the revenue authorities had not acted upon, since there was no
parent document produced. Thus, it is going vicious circle, one blaming the
other. It is for the Temple authorities to co-operate with the revenue
authorities to identify the Temple properties and the encroachers of the
property, take steps to retrieve the properties of the Temple. As regards the
fourth respondent, he himself has come forward and given details of the
properties in his name and his father's name. This could not be correlated with
revenue records due to non-cooperation. In view of the same, the first
respondent/Commissioner is directed to appoint a Special Officer in the rank
of Tahsildar available in the Headquarters to coordinate with the revenue
officials of the Virudhunagar District, to identify the Temple properties and to
retrieve and reclaim the same.
13.In view of the above, this Court is unable to find any reason to
interfere with the order of the second respondent/Joint Commissioner.
14.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
smn2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Sivagangai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
05.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
