Madras High Court
K.V. Lakshmiammal vs The Joint Commissioner on 19 January, 2022
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.01.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P(MD)No.851 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.682 of 2022
K.V. Lakshmiammal ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3.The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Madurai. ... Respondents
1/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned
notice passed by the 4th respondent in Na. Ka. No.2348/2007-1 Aa-1, dated
05.01.2022 and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan,
Government Advocate for R1, R2 & R4
Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for R3.
ORDER
A notice 'dated 05.01.2022 bearing reference e.f.vz;.2348/2007-1
M1' issued by the fourth respondent (hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the
sake of brevity, convenience and clarity) has been assailed in the captioned
main writ petition.
2. Captioned matter was moved by way of Lunch Motion.
Mr.H.Velavadhas, learned counsel for writ petitioner, Mr.T.Amjadkhan,
learned Government Advocate, who accepted notice on behalf of
respondents 1, 2, 4 and Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned private counsel,
who accepted notice on behalf of the third respondent (Executive Officer of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
'Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple situate in Thirupparankundram in
Madurai District', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said temple') are
before this Court.
3. Owing to the narrow compass on which the captioned matter turns,
the main writ petition was taken up with the consent of all the
aforementioned learned counsel.
4. Short facts shorn of particulars which are not imperative for
appreciating this order are that the subject matter of case on hand is
'immovable property (land and superstructure) admeasuring 1368 sq. ft or
thereabouts situate in Old Survey No.196/14A, New Survey No.945/6 in
Thirupparankundram Maanagar (khefh;), Thirupparankumdram, Madurai
District' (hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity)
and removal of writ petitioner from the same under the 'Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act No.22 of
1959)' [hereinafter 'TN HR&CE Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience
and clarity]; that 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'TN HR&CE Dept.' for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
sake of convenience and clarity; that proceedings under Section 78(2) of TN
HR&CE Act was kick-started nearly one and half decades ago, to be precise
on 14.02.2007 (nearly 15 years ago) by way of a notice under Section 78(2)
of TN HR&CE Act; that the 78(2) notice dated 14.02.2007 was challenged
by the writ petitioner and other legal heirs of writ petitioner's spouse (Thiru
Late K.K.Viswanathan) vide O.S.No.135 of 2007 originally on the file of
Principal Sub Court, Madurai; that O.S.No.135 of 2007 was transferred
from the file of Principal Sub Court Madurai to Sub Court Tirumangalam
and re-numbered as O.S.No.1 of 2017; that O.S.No.1 of 2017 was dismissed
as not pressed owing to a memo filed by the plaintiffs on 24.11.2021; that in
the interregnum a 'show cause notice' ('SCN' for the sake of brevity) was
issued on 19.01.2009 to the writ petitioner; that this 19.01.2009 SCN was
assailed by way of a writ petition by the writ petitioner in instant case
(K.V.Lakshmiammal) vide W.P.(MD)No.10566 of 2009, the same came to
be disposed of (after full contest) by a Hon'ble Single Judge in and by order
dated 08.12.2009 making it clear that the first respondent (jurisdictional
Joint Commissioner) shall complete the proceedings initiated by him by
giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner; that the writ petitioner carried
this matter in appeal by way of an intra Court appeal vide W.A.(MD)No.694
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
of 2009 and a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ
appeal in and by order dated 23.02.2010 confirming the order of Hon'ble
Single Judge (there shall be a little more discussion on this infra); that
thereafter proceedings under Section 78 of TN HR&CE Act took shape in
the form of M.P.No.1 of 2015 on the file of first respondent, after full
contest, M.P.No.1 of 2015 was ordered in and by order dated 09.09.2021
made by the first respondent inter alia holding that the writ petitioner is a
encroacher qua said property within the meaning of Section 78 of TN
HR&CE Act and giving 30 days time to the writ petitioner to remove herself
from the said property and hand over possession of the same to said temple;
that this order of first respondent (admittedly) was served on the writ
petitioner on 27.09.2021; that thereafter the writ petitioner filed a second
civil suit in O.S.No.417 of 2021 in Madurai District Court; that this suit was
filed on 20.10.2021; that this suit was transferred to IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge's Court; that in this suit the writ petitioner has arrayed
the temple, jurisdictional Joint Commissioner and Joint Commissioner
Sivagangai as defendants and inter alia prayed for a declaration that suit
property (said property too) belongs to plaintiffs, a consequential injunction
and also a declaration that 09.09.2021 order made by the first respondent is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
void and inoperative; that this second civil suit has been filed by the writ
petitioner as first plaintiff along with five others who are legal heirs of Thiru
Late K.K.Viswanathan (writ petitioner's spouse); that this second civil suit
is pending; that much before all these events, a suit in O.S.No.4 of 1920
came to be laid on the file of I Additional Sub Judge's Court, Madurai
regarding properties of said temple; that this suit culminated in a judgment
of Privy Council dated 12.05.1931 reported in 1931 SCC OnLine PC 47;
that under such circumstances, captioned main writ petition has been filed
assailing the impugned notice.
5. Notwithstanding very many averments in the writ affidavit and
several grounds raised in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ
petitioner made focused submissions in the hearing, a summation of which
is as follows:
a) impugned notice is under Section 78(2) of TN
HR&CE Act and such a notice can be issued only by the
Joint Commissioner and not by Assistant Commissioner;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
b) under Rule 4 of 'The Removal of Encorachments
on Lands or Buildings Belonging to Religious Institutions
Rules' (G.O.Ms.No.383, Revenue, dated 29th January 1962
as amended by G.O.Ms.No.275 C.T. & R.E., dated 16th July
1997) [hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of convenience
and clarity], 30 days time ought to be given as far as
impugned notice is concerned but barely 6 clear days have
been given as the impugned notice was served on the writ
petitioner only on 12.01.2022 and ultimatum is 10 AM on
19.01.2022;
c) that a title suit in O.S.No.417 of 2021 is pending
and therefore, the impugned notice at this juncture is bad;
6. Learned State Counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of
respondents 1, 2 and 4 on instructions submitted as follows:
a) after narrating the facts (captured supra), learned
State Counsel submitted that the impugned notice is under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
Section 79(1) of TN HR&CE Act and not under Section
78(2) of TN HR&CE Act as contended;
b) the proceedings commenced nearly 15 years ago
on 14.02.2007;
7. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Private Counsel, who accepted
notice on behalf of third respondent (Executive Officer of said temple who
is in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner of TN HR&CE Dept.) made
submissions which are as follows:
a) originally 14.02.2007 notice was challenged by
way of a suit which was withdrawn and the subsequent
SCN dated 19.01.2009 was also unsuccessfully
challenged by way of writ petition / writ appeal, the order
dated 09.09.2021 has given enough time i.e., 30 days to
the writ petitioner and therefore the argument that
sufficient time has not been given as per said Rules is no
argument;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
b) learned private counsel for temple pointed out
that I.A.No.764 of 2021 has been moved for interim
injunction in aforementioned O.S.No.417 of 2021, it is
scheduled to come up on 21.01.2022 and advance hearing
petition has been filed today;
8. By way of reply arguments, learned counsel for writ petitioner
besides reiterating his submissions made in the opening arguments,
submitted that the writ petitioner's title suit is pending.
9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions, perused
the case file placed before this Court and after analysing the points
projected before this Court and the case file comes to the conclusion that the
prayer in the captioned main writ petition cannot be acceded to and the
reasons are as follows:
a) the earliest title qua said property is O.S.No.4 of
1920 on the file of I Additional Sub Judge's Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
Madurai, which was carried in appeal to the Privy
Council. To be noted, as already alluded to supra (in the
factual matrix) Privy Council decided this matter on
12.05.1931 and this judgment has been reported in 1931
SCC OnLine PC 47. In this judgment, the Privy Council
constituted by 5 noble men, i.e., Lords in Privy Council
as they then were, inter alia held that they are of the
opinion that said temple (to be noted said temple is the
appellant) had shown that the unoccupied portion of the
hill has been in the possession of the temple from time
immemorial and has been treated by the temple
authorities as their property. To be noted, the question
before the Privy Council was whether any presumption
should be drawn from the confiscation of the endowed
villages as to the property rights in the waste land situate
within the Ghiri Veedhi and forming part of the
Malaiprakaram. Most important finding is, it was
admitted that the village of Tirupparankundram in which
said temple is situate was part of this endowment. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
excerpted paragraphs of Judgement of Privy Counsel is
as follows:
'Their Lordships will now return to the matter
with which the present appeal is immediately
concerned. The question is whether any presumption
should be drawn from the confiscation of the endowed
villages as to the proprietary rights in the waste land
situate within the Ghiri Veedhi and forming part of
the Malaiprakaram. It is admitted that the village of
Tirupparankundram, in which the temple is situated,
was part of this endowment.
The Tirupparankundarm Temple is one of the
famous rock temples of Southern India. It is situated
at the base of a hill some 500 feet high; and is
dedicated to Subramanya, the son of Siva. The inner
shrine of the temple is hewn out of the hill and in it,
carved in the rock itself, is the image of the deity.
Around the base of the hill is a pilgrims way, nearly
two miles in extent. This is said to be essential to the
worship of the devotees, who perform the ceremony of
pradakshinam by going round the image of the deity
with the right shoulder continuously presented to him.
As the image in the temple is an actual part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
hill, it is obvious that the performance of this rite
necessitates the perambulation of the hill itself. This
way, which is also used for processions of the temple
car on ceremonial occasions, is known as the Ghiri
Veedhi and it is claimed as the property of the temple.
It is referred to in numerous documents, dating back
to 1144, as the Malaiprakaram of the temple. The
Subordinate Judge states that prakaram is a Sanskrit
word meaning the outer round of the temple, or fort:
malai merely means hill.
On the whole their Lordships are of opinion
that the appellant has shown that the unoccupied
portion of the hill has been in the possession of the
temple from time immemorial and has been treated by
the temple authorities as their property. They think
that the conclusion come to by the Subordinate Judge
was right and that no ground has been shown for
disturbing his decree. They will therefore humbly
advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed,
that the decree of the High Court dismissing the
appellant's suit should be set asido and that the decree
of the Subordinate Judge dated 25th August 1923,
should be restored. The Secretary of State must pay the
appellant's costs in the High Court and before this
Board.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
b) A careful perusal of the plaint that has been
presented now (second civil suit) viz., O.S.No.417 of
2021 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge's Court, Madurai, makes it clear that the plaint is
predicated on the premise that the aforementioned
judgment of the Privy Council has been wrongly
applied by the first respondent in 09.09.202l order.
This is articulated in paragraph 17 of the plaint as
placed before me and the same reads as follows:
'17.It is submitted that the 3rd defendant has
not interpreted the decree passed in O.S.No.
4/1920 properly and wrongly applied to the
schedule mentioned property. It is submitted that
the relief sought in the suit was “for declaration,
injunction and recovery of possession of
Thirupparakundram hill, the Giriveethi, the
Sannathi Street, The sacred shines and the holy
waters in the hill, with all unoccupied poromboke
Thereon”
The trail court in clause 1 of the decree
granted relief as follows
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
“That the plaintiff is the owner and has
been in possession of the whole of
Thirupparakundaram hill and Ghiri veedthi,
excepting assessed and occupied lands, the
Nellitope, including the new mantapam, the flight
of steps leading from Nellitope up to the moseque
and the top of the rock on which the mosque and
the flag staff of the Muhammadans stand”...'
It is also to be noted that the plaint placed before me
does not include the list of documents as required under
Order VII Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
(CPC) but learned counsel submits that as many as 22
documents has been filed but that is aside of the matter.
c) Aforementioned Privy Counsel judgment was
noticed by a Hon'ble Division Bench in the
aforementioned order dated 23.02.2010 in W.A.(MD)No.
694 of 2009 arising out of writ petitioner's challenge to
19.01.2009 SCN and the Hon'ble Division Bench very
clearly held that the Privy Council has already concluded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
that said temple is the owner of said property. This is
articulated by Hon'ble Division Bench in paragraph 7 of
its order, which reads as follows:
'7. Inasmuch as the right of the land in
question has already been concluded by the Privy
Council that the temple is the owner of the property
the petitioner will have no right over the property
and there is no prohibition or impediment in taking
action for removal of the encroachment as
contemplated under Section 78 of the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Therefore, without even inviting an order under
Section 78(4) of the Act, the present Writ Petition is
not maintainable.....'
The aforementioned excerpted portion of paragraph 7 of
the order of Hon'ble Division Bench clinches the matter
conclusively against the writ petitioner as the writ
petitioner has accepted the above order of Hon'ble
Division Bench and given complete legal quietus to the
same;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
d) Privy Council has come to the conclusion that
the hill and the Ghiri Veedhi forming part of the
Malaiprakaram belongs to the said temple and a Hon'ble
Division Bench in the aforementioned excerpted
paragraphs 7 has noticed the Privy Council judgment and
come to the conclusion that owing to the Privy Council
judgment, said temple is the owner of said property. To
be noted, the aforementioned writ appeal was at the
instance of the writ petitioner and the said judgment was
not carried further in appeal and the writ petitioner has
given complete legal quietus to the order of the Hon'ble
Division Bench as already alluded to supra. Therefore, all
other averments in the plaint in O.S.No.417 of 2021
pertaining to purchase of said property and inter vivos
transactions get completely subsumed by the Privy
Council judgment. On a demurrer, all sale deeds post
Privy Council judgement (to be noted, Privy Council
judgement has been clearly understood as a judgment
that has conclusively decided title of said temple qua said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
property by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a
writ appeal at the instance of this very writ petitioner)
can at no stretch of imagination be the basis for a decree
to establish that said temple has no title over said
property. Therefore, the writ petitioner having accepted
the order of Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23.02.2010 in
W.A.(MD)No.694 of 2009 cannot now say that there is a
suit to establish that said temple has no title over said
property and that such a suit is a civil suit within the
meaning of sub-section (2) of section 79 of TN HR&CE
Act; In this regard, the language in which sub-section (2)
of section 79 of TN HR&CE Act is couched is also of
significance as it does not talk about a mere title suit, but
it talks about a suit to establish that a religious
endowment or endowment has no title to the property. In
other words, in the case on hand, it should be a suit
which should establish that said temple has no title to
said property. In the case on hand, the Privy Council
judgment has been accepted by writ petitioner vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
Division Bench order which says that suit property
belongs to said temple. Therefore, writ petitioner has
accepted the judicial order of a Division Bench that says
(on the basis of Privy Council judgment arising out of a
fully contested civil suit) that said property belongs to
said temple. Therefore, the writ petitioner having
accepted the Division Bench order that said property
belongs to said temple can by no stretch of imagination
establish in a District Court that said temple has no title
over said property. A further legal aspect in this regard is
vide proviso to sub section (2) of section 79 of TN
HR&CE Act, a period of limitation of six months from
the date of receipt of the order under section 78(4) has
been prescribed as opposed to conventional title suits.
The sequitur that follows is, this court is not deciding the
title suit in a writ petition, but has tested whether writ
petitioner satisfies the ingredients of sub section (2) of
section 79 by institution of O.S.No.417 of 2021 on the
file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
Madurai.
e) The sequitur is the suit in O.S. No 417 of 2021
is clearly a non-starter. Section 79(2) of TN HR&CE Act
is a provision available to a person faced with any
proceedings under section 78 of TN HR&CE Act more
particularly 78(4) of TN HR&CE Act, he/she can
institute a suit to establish that the religious institution or
endowment has no title to the property concerned. In the
case on hand, it is the case of the writ petitioner that O.S.
No 417 of 2021 is one such a suit under section 79(2) of
TN HR& CE Act. Obviously this is clearly not only a
non-starter but a no argument because said property has
been held to be a property of said temple vide a Privy
Council judgement and this Privy Council judgement has
been noticed by a Honb'le Division Bench in the writ
appeal filed by the writ petitioner herself ( paragraph 7
supra) and held that the said property also forms part of
Privy Council judgement which in turn means the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
property belongs to said temple. In other words
according to the Division Bench judgment dated
23.02.2010 in W.A.(MD)No.694 of 2009, said property
belongs to said temple in view of the judgement of the
Privy Council. This writ appeal as already alluded to
supra was invited by the very writ petitioner and the writ
petitioner has accepted / given complete quietus to the
order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. This court sitting
as a Single Bench, as matter of judicial discipline would
respectfully go by the order of the Honb'le Division
Bench. This is also a matter of judicial discipline.
Obviously, the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Madurai on whose file O.S.No.417 of 2021 is pending is
also bound by this Division Bench order.
f) This takes us to the next point as to whether the
impugned notice is under section 78(2) of TN HR & CE
Act as contended by the writ petitioner. A perusal of the
trajectory thus far as well as the impugned notice in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
light of case file placed before me makes it clear that it is
not a notice under section 78(2) of TN HR&CE Act but it
is a notice under Section 79(1) TN HR&CE Act. The
reason is Section 78 of TN HR&CE proceedings which
was kick-started nearly one and half decades ago in
February 2007 (14.02.2007 to be precise) culminated in a
detailed order of the first respondent dated 09.09.2021 in
M.P.No.1 of 2015. To be noted, this order is after full
contest and it is seen that there are as many as 10
documents (exhibits) on the side of the petitioner and 21
documents (exhibits) on the side of the respondents. It is
also seen from a perusal of the order that oral evidence
has been let in and there has been extensive cross
examination also though the list of witnesses has not
been given at the foot of the order. This detailed order is
under Section 78(4) of TN HR&CE Act. Therefore, there
is no question of going back to Section 78(2) of TN
HR&CE Act. This Section 78(4) order clearly gives 30
days time, the most relevant paragraphs are the two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
concluding paragraphs i.e, penultimate paragraph and
last paragraph which read as follows:
'vdNt> ,e;J rka mwf;nfhilfs; rl;lk;.
1959 gphpT 78(4) – d; gb Mf;fpukpg;ghsuhd
vjph;kDjhuh; ,e;j cj;juT ngw;w 30
jpdq;fSf;Fs; jdJ Mf;fpukpg;gpid
mfw;wpf;nfhz;L jpUf;Nfhapy; trk; kDr;nrhj;jpd;
RthjPdj;ij xg;gilf;f cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
Nkw;gb fhyj;jpw;Fs; nrhj;jpid
xg;gilf;fj; jtwpdhy;> rk;ge;jg;gl;l nrhj;jpy;
cs;s Mf;fpukpg;Gfis rl;lg;gphpT 79(1)-d; fPo;
tUtha; Jiw kw;Wk; fhty;Jiw mYtyh;fs;
xj;Jiog;Gld; mfw;wp nrhj;jpid jpUf;Nfhapy;
trk; RthjPdk; xg;gilj;J tptuk; njhptpf;f
kJiu cjtp Mizaiu Nfl;Lf;
nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.'
g) Pursuant to the aforementioned section 78(4)
order, the impugned notice has been issued {obviously
under Section 79(1) of TN HR&CE Act} by the first
respondent more than four months later. As already
alluded to supra, the order of the first respondent was
served on the writ petitioner on 27.09.2021 and the
impugned notice has been served on the writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
only on 12.01.2022 more than three months and half
month later. Therefore, the argument of 30 days time
was not given under Rule 4 of said Rules also pales into
insignificance and clearly becomes a non-starter. Rule 4
makes it clear that it would only apply to notices under
Sections 78(3) [besides 80(3) and 80(2)]. Rule 4 of said
Rules reads as follows:
'4. Contents of notice under sections 78 (3)
and 80 (3). - (1) The notice under sections 78(3) and
80(3) of the Act shall provide 30 days time for the
show cause and 15 days time for making an order
under sections 78(2) and 80(2) of the Act.[The Joint
Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case
may be], may grant such further time as he deems fit.
(2) The notice shall specify the land, or space
or building or the other details covered by the
encroachment proposed to be removed as specified
under section 78(2) of the Act and state the
boundaries, with survey numbers, if any, extent and
such other relevant particulars as may be necessary to
identify the land.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
That stage is all over and now the impugned notice is
under Section 79(1) of TN HR&CE Act. In any event, 78
order / notice gives 30 days time and therefore, there is
no infraction of said Rules.
h) This takes us to the one other collateral
development which needs to be recorded for completing
the narrative. When 78(2) of TN HR&CE Act
proceedings were kick-started, the writ petitioner came to
this Court by way of writ petition vide W.P.(MD)No.
15309 of 2015 which came to be disposed of on
26.08.2015 by a Hon'ble Division Bench. This was qua
an issue that the second respondent in the captioned writ
petition should not hear the 78 proceedings as the then
incumbent of second respondent was originally
Executive Officer of said temple when the proceedings
were initiated. To be noted, this individual was arrayed
as third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.15309 of 2015.
Therefore, as a matter of good order Hon'ble Division
Bench transferred the matter from the file of second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
respondent in the captioned writ petition to the file of the
first respondent in the captioned writ petition i.e., Joint
Commissioner, Sivagangai. In other words, transfer was
from the file of Joint Commissioner, Madurai to Joint
Commissioner, Sivagangai, who ultimately made the
09.09.2021 order which was (admittedly) served on the
writ petitioner on 27.09.2021.
i) This Court took it upon itself to examine the
District Court website regarding O.S.No.135 of 2007
which was on the file of Principal Sub Court Madurai
and thereafter transferred to Sub Court, Tirumangalam,
which was renumbered as O.S.No.1 of 2017 and which
came to be withdrawn. A scanned reproduction of the
same is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
The case file says that O.S.No.417 of 2021 is on the file of
District Court without giving further details. Therefore,
this Court took upon itself to go into the District Court
website, downloaded status of the case from the official
website of the District Court website, the same shows that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
the suit is now on the file of IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge's Court. A scanned reproduction of the
case status regarding O.S.No.417 of 2021 is as follows:
j) From the narrative thus far, it is clear that this
purported title suit is a non-starter and the plaintiffs cannot
but be non-suited in the light of judgment of Privy Council
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
as noticed by a Hon'ble Division Bench. However I leave
it to learned IV Additional District and Session Judge to
complete the formalities though this Court could have
called for the suit file in this writ petition itself and
concluded the suit. The title of the temple qua said
property has been conclusively established in a civil suit
and it was noticed by a Hon'ble Division Bench and
therefore it cannot be repeatedly revisited ad nauseam by
way of several suits. Absent such a suit within the meaning
of section 79(2) of TN HR&CE Act, the impugned notice
under Section 79(1) of TN HR&CE has no basis to be
interfered with. If at all, a section 78(4) order is to be
assailed that should be by way of a statutory revision inter-
alia under section 21 of TN HR&CE Act, as already
alluded to supra, TN HR&CE Act is a self contained Code
and that has not been done which means section 78(4)
order dated 09.09.2021 has been given legal quietus /
attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
k) To put it differently, 09.09.2021 section 78(4)
order has attained finality, it has not been assailed within
the legal perimeter of TN HR&CE Act as statutory
revision lies under section 21. The purported suit has been
held to be no suit denying title of religious institution (said
temple) within the meaning of section 79(2). An order
under section 78(4) cannot be assailed as one limb of the
prayer in such a civil suit. There is clear bar in this regard
qua section 108 of TN HR&CE Act.
10. In the light of the discussion and dispositive reasoning set out
supra, captioned writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Consequently, captioned WMP is also dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
19.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes /No
vsm/vvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Madurai District, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple,
Thirupparankundram, Madurai.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.851 of 2022
M.SUNDAR, J.
vsm/vvk
W.P(MD)No.851 of 2022
and W.M.P.(MD)No.682 of 2022
19.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
