P.Raji vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 9345 Mad

                                                                                 W.P. No.13098 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 19.05.2022

                                                         CORAM :

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

                                               W.P. No.13098 of 2022
                                                        and
                                           W.M.P.Nos.12474 & 12475 of 2022

                  P.Raji                                                           ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs.
                  1.The Commissioner,
                    Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
                    Administration Department,
                    Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
                    Nungambakkam, Chennai.

                  2.The Inspector/Thakkar,
                    A/m.Venugopalaswamy Temple,
                    Edayanallur Village,
                    Hosur Taluk,
                    Krishnagiri District.                                        ... Respondents

                            Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                  issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent
                  auction notice in Ref. No. Nil, dated -nil- and quash the same as void and
                  illegal in so far as the Survey No.351 measuring an extent 2.70 acres situated
                  at Edayanallur Village, Nagondapalli Panchayat, Hosur Taluk is concerned.


                                    For Petitioner      : Mr.R.Rajaramani
                                    For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                      Special Government Pleader (HR&CE)

                  1/9
                                                                               W.P. No.13098 of 2022

                                                     ORDER

The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the

auction notice undated insofar as Survey No.351 measuring an extent of 2.70

acres situated at Edayanallur Village, Nagondapaali Panchayat, Hosur Taluk

is concerned.

2. The petitioner states that the larger extent of agricultural land

comprised in S.No.351 measuring an extent of 2.70 acres situated at

Edayanallur Village, Nagondapalli Panchayat, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri

District belongs to Arulmigu Venugopalaswamy Temple. The said temple is

owning larger extent of agricultural lands in various survey numbers. The

temple was administered and managed by the Trustees originally, and

thereafter it was taken over by the Hindu Religious & Charitable

Endowments Department.

3. The petitioner states that his father Mr.Papanna, was the lease

holder in respect of S.No.351 measuring an extent of 2.70 acres situated at

Edyanallur Village, Nagondapalli Panchayat. The lease was executed on

25.09.1986 for a period from fasli 1395 to 1397 and the lease amount was

fixed at Rs. 75/- per acre. Admittedly, the father of the writ petitioner died https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No.13098 of 2022

during the year 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner being a legal heir is in

possession of the temple property and cultivating the land.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the

petitioner is a cultivating tenant and under the definition of the provisions of

the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural

Lands) Act, 1961, he is entitled to continue the cultivation in the subject

property and the respondents have no authority to dispossess the petitioner

from the property.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the father of the

petitioner was the original lease holder and he was cultivating the land and

after his death in the year 2000, the petitioner continues to cultivate the land

and therefore, the action taken by the respondents to conduct public auction

in respect of the property is not in consonance with the provisions of Tamil

Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands)

Act, 1961.

6. It is brought to the notice of this court that one of the cultivating

tenants, namely Muniappa has filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 15 of 2003 and a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No.13098 of 2022

decree was also passed in favour of the plaintiff.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred the judgment of the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, in W.A.No. 1174 of 2012, V. Angu vs

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment

Department and Others dated 20.07.2016, in the said judgment, the

appellant therein was considered as cultivating tenant and a similar benefit is

to be extended to the petitioner also.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the

HR & CE objected the said contention by stating that even as per the

Division Bench Judgment relied on by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be

considered as cultivating tenant. The facts decided by the Hon'ble Division

Bench are not similar to that of the case of the writ petitioner.

9. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the said case identified the appellant

therein, who was recorded as a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959

(hereinafter referred to as 'the HR & CE Act') and therefore considered the

case. However, in the present case, the petitioner at no circumstances is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No.13098 of 2022

declared as a cultivating tenant nor there is any record to establish that his

father or the petitioner is considered as a cultivating tenant by the department

or by the temple authorities. The father of the writ petitioner was a lease

holder and after his death, the lease was not extended by the department

under Section 34 of the HR & CE Act. The temple authorities are

empowered to grant lease for a maximum period of five years and beyond

that they have to obtain prior permission from the Commissioner of Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. However, no such

permission was granted in favour of the petitioner to continue the lease and

therefore he is an unauthorised occupier under the provisions of the HR &

CE Act.

10. This Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly the

property belongs to the temple which is listed under Section 49 of the HR &

CE Act. While so, the properties of the temple are to be dealt with in

accordance with the provisions of the HR & CE Act and the Rules thereof.

When the subject property belongs to the temple, and the authorities

competent are empowered to lease the property under Section 34 of the HR

& CE Act, the said provisions would apply and the provisions of the Central

Act cannot override the provisions of the Special Act. In such circumstances, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No.13098 of 2022

the Special Act would prevail over the Central Act and in the present case,

the petitioner is unable to establish that his father's name was recorded as a

cultivating tenant in the temple records or his father was recognized as a

cultivating tenant either by the temple authorities or by the HR & CE

department. Therefore, the said judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench is

of no avail to the petitioner.

11. The Hon'ble Division Bench in paragraph 8 of the said judgment

held as follows:

'8. It is an admitted fact that the land in question belongs to the Second Respondent-

Temple, which is a listed Temple under Section 46 of the TN HR & CE Act, 1959. The factum remains that the Appellant is a Statutory Tenant as his name is recorded as a Tenant under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Act, 1965. He has been cultivating the land in question for the past 25 years as a Tenant.'

12. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not established that he is

a cultivating tenant nor the name of the father of the writ petitioner was

recorded as a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1965, the petitioner

cannot be construed as a cultivating tenant and further after the death of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No.13098 of 2022

father of the writ petitioner, the lease was not extended in favour of the

petitioner by the competent authorities.

13. This being the factum established, the petitioner is not entitled to

claim any benefit as cultivating tenant and the authorities competent are

empowered to conduct public auction in respect of the temple properties by

following the procedures as contemplated under the Statute and the Rules in

force. The petitioner is also at liberty to participate in the public auction if

he is otherwise eligible in accordance with law. The writ petition stands

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

14. It is brought to the notice of this court that the period of lease even

as per the department expires on 30.06.2022 and the petitioner shall be

allowed to continue in the subject property till 30.06.2022. It is made clear

that the fresh lease is to be executed with effect from 01.07.2022 onwards

after completing the process of auction in the manner known to law.

                                                                                   19.05.2022
                 Index          : Yes / No
                 Speaking order : Yes / No
                 mrn/jd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis



                                                                W.P. No.13098 of 2022

                  To


                  1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Administration Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

2.The Inspector/Thakkar, A/m.Venugopalaswamy Temple, Edayanallur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No.13098 of 2022

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

jd/mrn

W.P. No.13098 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.12474 & 12475 of 2022

19.05.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis