Madras High Court
Chokkalingapuram Devangar vs The Commissioner on 29 March, 2022
W.P(MD).No.20636 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P(MD).No.20636 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.16902 and 16903 of 2017
Chokkalingapuram Devangar
Varthaga Sangam through its
President
Door No.20, West Car Street,
Chokkalingapuram,
Aruppukottia,
Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Sivagangai.
3.Aruppukottai Chokkanathasamy Temple,
Chokkalingapuram,
Aruppukottai
Through its
Executive Officer,
Aruppukottai.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.20636 of 2017
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Madurai. ...Respondents
(R4 is suo muto impleaded by this
Court vide order, dated 29.03.2022)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the first respondent dated 02.01.2017 in proceedings dated
02.01.2017 in proceedings Na.Ka.No.712/2013 M, the consequential
calculation sheet prepared by the third respondent, quash the same as the
same is arbitrary, ultrvires, contrary to law, and consequentially direct the
second respondent to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh
For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.P.Mahendran
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication of the first
respondent, dated 02.01.2017 in proceedings Na.Ka.No.712/2013 M,
exchanged between the first and second respondents calling upon the second
respondent to take steps to recover the amount towards use and occupation of
the property of the third respondent temple from the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.20636 of 2017
2. The case was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner by
stating that the petitioner had built a superstructure on the land belonging to
the third respondent under a bonafide impression that the land did not belong
to the third respondent temple and that there was longstanding battle between
the petitioner’s sangam and the third respondent. It is submitted that the third
respondent temple had earlier filed O.S.No.128 of 1986, which was dismissed
by the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the first appeal in A.S.No.154 of 1996 before
the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar also affirmed the judgment and decree
of the Trail Court, dismissing the suit filed by the third respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only in the year
2008, the title of the property was resolved after the second appeal before this
Court was allowed in S.A.No.1002 of 2000, vide judgment and decree dated
15.02.2008. It is submitted that the building in question was put by the
petitioner and therefore the calculation given by the third respondent pursuant
to the directions of the respondents 1 and 2 levying fair rent from 1996 on the
superstructure put up by the petitioner cannot be upheld. That apart, it is
submitted that the petitioner voluntarily executed a gift deed in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.20636 of 2017
third respondent temple after the second appeal was allowed on 15.02.2008,
by making an offer on 19.08.2016, which was accepted by the first respondent
on 02.01.2017 and thereafter gift deed was executed. It is therefore submitted
that the petitioner can be asked to pay the amount towards use and occupation
for the land and not for the building which was admittedly put up by the
petitioner.
4. Opposing the prayer, the learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents 1, 2 and 4 and the learned counsel for the third respondent
submits that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the intra office
communication exchanged between the respondents 1 and 2 pursuant to
which the third respondent has given a calculation. The learned counsel for
the respondents further submits that despite lapse of time, the petitioner has
not come forward to pay a single penny for the period commencing from 1986
and the petitioner is therefore encroacher on the said property. It is submitted
that on the date of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was approximately
due for a sum of Rs.33,60,409/- and a further sum towards litigation in all
amounting to Rs.34,41,839/-. Despite lapse of three years, since the impugned
calculation was given, no further payments have been made. As on date, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.20636 of 2017
sum of Rs.64,08,722/- is due from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the
respondents further submits that the petitioner is running about 45
commercial shops in the building. It is further submitted that the correctness
of calculation made by the third respondent cannot be decided in this
proceeding. However, the fact remains that right from 1986, the petitioner has
not paid a single penny to the third respondent temple.
5. Considering the same, I am inclined to dispose the writ petition by
directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- within a period of sixty
days from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the third respondent
temple. The amount paid by the petitioner shall be treated as deposit to be
appropriated by the third respondent subject to proper determination of
amount for use and occupation by the petitioner on the two cents of land from
the year 1986. The appropriate calculation shall be made and intimated to the
petitioner. The petitioner shall start paying rent for the ensuing period at
Rs.54,201/-. The said rent can also subject to challenge from the petitioner in
accordance with the provisions of the law. The amounts directed to be paid by
the petitioner shall subject to final determination of the fair rent both for the
period starting from 1986 and for the period after such revision has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.20636 of 2017
made. This exercise shall be completed by the fourth respondent within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
29.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
sn
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Sivagangai.
3.Aruppukottai Chokkanathasamy Temple,
Chokkalingapuram,
Aruppukottai
Through its
Executive Officer,
Aruppukottai.
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.20636 of 2017
C.SARAVANAN, J.
sn
W.P(MD).No.20636 of 2017
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
