Madras High Court
S.Rengarajan Naidu vs P.Muthukrishnan on 11 May, 2022
W.A.(MD) No.460 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.05.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.(MD) No.460 of 2022
and C.M.P. (MD) No.4352 of 2022
S.Rengarajan Naidu .. Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Muthukrishnan
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Pudukkottai District.
5.The Inspector,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Kulathur,
Pudukottai District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order dated 26.04.2022 made in WMP(MD) No.6187 of 2022 in W.P.(MD)
No.8329 of 2022.
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.460 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
st
For 1 Respondent : Mr.M.Suresh
For Respondents
2 to 5 : Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]
Mr.M.Suresh, learned counsel takes notice for the first respondent
and Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts
notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 5. By consent of both parties, the Writ
Appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.This intra Court appeal has been filed challenging the interim
order passed by the Writ Court in WMP(MD) No.6187 of 2022 in W.P.(MD)
No.8329 of 2022.
3.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the 1st
respondent herein/writ petitioner has encroached the land in S.F.Nos.36/1
and 43 of Pidampatti Village, Mathur Post, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.460 of 2022
District. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant/hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Sanjeevirayar Thirukovil,
Pidampatti Village, has taken steps to approach the authority concerned
under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Act, 1959 for evicting the writ petitioner, namely, the 1st
respondent herein. In the meantime, the 1st respondent pursuant to the order
passed by the Writ Court, has taken law into in his own hands and cut and
removed the Seemai Karuvela trees (Prosopis Juliflora) from the aforesaid
land. The first respondent has not produced any documents to substantiate
his case that he is a lessee of the subject property under the appellant temple
and has not established any legal right to remove the trees from the subject
property.
4.According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the
first respondent is a lessee under the Temple and therefore, he is having a
right to cut and remove the trees from the land in Survey No.36/1 to an
extent of 2.25 acres. Therefore, the Writ Court accepted the said contention
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.460 of 2022
of the first respondent. It is further submitted that the trees were being
removed by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, all the
facts are disputed facts and it can be decided before the competent forum
and hence, the present appeal is unsustainable and it is liable to be
dismissed.
5.The appellant has denied the contention of the first respondent
that he is a lessee under the appellant temple and therefore, he is not entitled
to remove the trees. All these facts are disputed facts and the appellant has
to seek appropriate remedy before the competent forum for eviction of the
first respondent from the subject property and for claiming damages or
compensation for the illegal removal of trees from the subject property.
6.In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are
constrained to direct the appellant to approach the competent forum under
Section 78 of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant
to approach the competent forum under Section 78 of the Act within a
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.460 of 2022
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Considering the issue involved in the Writ Petition, if any such application
is submitted under the provisions of the HR & CE Act, the fourth
respondent Assistant Commissioner shall consider the same and take
appropriate decision within a period of 12 weeks thereafter by providing
adequate opportunity to the aggrieved parties. It is needless to state that the
fourth respondent, without being influenced by any of the above
observations made by this Court, shall independently deal with the matter
based on the materials available on record.
7.With the above modifications, the Writ Appeal stands disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[D.K.K., J.] [K.R., J.]
11.05.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
mm/sj
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.460 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
mm/sj
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Pudukkottai District.
4.The Inspector,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Kulathur,
Pudukottai District.
W.A.(MD) No.460 of 2022
11.05.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
