Madras High Court
S.Ramarasu vs The District Collector on 3 November, 2022
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.20351 of 2022
S.Ramarasu ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Collector,
Perambalur District,
Perambalur.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Perambalur District.
[R2 amended vide order dated 22.08.2022 made in W.P.No.21349 of 2022]
3.The President,
Keezha Perambalur Panchayat,
Keezha Perambalur,
Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District. ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to
dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2022 and to drop the
acquisition in respect of land bearing S.No.255/12, in Keezha Perambalur Village
to the extent of 4 acres.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
For Petitioner : M/s.B.N.Sivagama Sundari
For R1 : Mrs.M.Geetha Thamaraiselvan,
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.K.Karthi Keyan,
Government Advocate (HR & CE)
For R3 : Mr.P.Ganesan,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Court on 08.09.2022 had disposed of the present writ petition by
issuing certain directions to the respondents 1 to 3. However, on 18.10.2022
Mrs.M.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the 1st respondent requested this Court to post the above writ
petition for modification of an observation made in the said order. Hence, this
Court directed the Registry to post the writ petition under the caption “For
Modification” on 01.11.2022.
2. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated
28.04.2022 and to drop the acquisition in respect of land bearing S.No.255/12, in
Keezha Perambalur Village to an extent of 4 cents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is one of the hereditary trustee of
Arulmigu Ayyanar temple in Keezha Perambalur Village. According to the
petitioner, the lands comprised in Survey No.204/1 measuring 24.50 Ares and
255/12 measuring 42 Ares in all 66.5 Ares in the said Village belonged to the
temple. However, for the purpose of constructing a hospital, though a different
land was identified by District Collector, the land in Survey No.255/12 was
earmarked and a building was constructed thereon without acquiring the same
from the temple. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation
and filed W.P.No.3715 of 2015 before this Court by order dated 13.02.2015, this
Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the representation and to pass a
speaking order.
4. Based on the order of this Court, the petitioner submitted a fresh
representation on 08.03.2016, pointing out that the local body has encroached the
land belongs to the temple in S.No.255/12 by putting up a construction for a
hospital. The petitioner in his representation further submitted that the land
belonging to the temple cannot be taken over for public purpose as per the
judgment of this Court reported in (2007) 4 MLJ 114. The District Collector's
intervention was sought for to render justice to the temple. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
representation was rejected by the District Collector in the following lines:
3/ ,e;neh;tpy; Fd;dk; tl;lhl;rpah; 23/04/2015 k;
njjpa mwpf;ifapy;. fPHg;bguk;gYhh; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/255-
12y; Jiz Rfhjhu epiyak; Tiu kl;lk; tiu fl;llk;
fl;lg;gl;L tpl;ljhy; jw;bghGJ ntW g[yj;jpw;F khw;w
,ayhJ vd kDjhuUf;F bjhptpf;fyhk; vdt[k;. nkYk;
nkw;go g[y vz;/255-12 mUs;kpF ma;adhh; nfhtpy;
bgahpy; cs;sjhy; jw;bghGJ ,e;j epyk; ,e;J rka
mwepiyaj; Jiwapd;fPH; tug;bgw;Ws;sjhy; mj;Jiw
mDkjp bgw;W nky; eltof;if vLf;fyhk; vd mwpf;if
rkh;g;gpj;Js;shh;/
4/ nkYk; mUs;kpF ma;adhh; jpUf;nfhapy;. bray;
mYtyh; jdJ 21/04/2015 ehspl;l fojj;jpy; nkw;go
jpUf;nfhapy; eph;thfj;jpw;F bray; mYtyh; epakdk;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhft[k;. ,f;nfhapy; ghuk;ghpak; nfhhp
O.A.No.12/2009-y; ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw ,iz
Mizahplk; tHf;F bjhlh;e;J tHf;FepYitapy; cs;sJ
vdt[k;. bjhptpj;Js;shh;/
5/ nkw;go tHf;fpd; kDjhuu; jpU/v!;/uhkuhR jdJ
08/03/2016-k; ehspl;l kDtpy; khz;g[kpF cah;ePjpkd;w
jPh;g;gpd; nghpy; ve;jtpj tprhuiznah. my;yJ ghpfhunkh
fpilf;fg;bgwtpy;iy vdt[k; jhd; KiwapLtbjy;yhk;
g";rhaj;J jiythpd; ,e;j Vnjr;rjpfhukhd nghf;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
cah;ePjp kd;wj;jpd; jPh;g;gpw;F Kuz;ghlhdJk; rl;lj;jpw;Fk;
epahaj;jpw;Fk; xt;thj xd;whFk; vdj;bjhptpj;J mUs;kpF
fPHg;bguk;gYhh; ma;adhh; nfhtpYf;F ePjptH';FkhW
nfhhpa[s;shh;/
6/ khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;F
W.P.No.3713/2015-d; kPjhd 13/02/2015 ehspl;l
jPh;g;g[iuapd; tHfhl;Ljypd;go ,t;tHf;fpd; kDjhuh;
jpU/v!;/uhkuhR vd;gthpd; 14/08/2014 ehspl;l kDtpd;
gpujhd nfhhpf;ifahd Jiz Rfhjhu epiyak; mikf;f
g[y vz;/255-12-y; 0/41/5 bcwf;nlh; gl;lh vz;/13-y;
“mUs;kpF ma;adhh; Rthkp nfhtpy; bgahpy; cs;s
epyj;jpy; fl;llk; fl;lhky; g";rhaj;J mYtyfk; mUfpy;
fl;l; lk; fl;lj;bjhptpj;Js;shh;/
7/ bghJ kf;fspd; bghJ kw;Wk; mj;jpahtrpa
njitapid fUj;jpy; bfhz;L bghJ nehf;fj;jpw;fhf
Jiz Rfhjhu epiya fl;llk; nkw;go ,lj;jpy;
fl;lg;gl;L gzp epiwtile;j epiyapy; cs;sJ/ nkw;go
epyj;jpid Rfhjhuj; Jiwf;F epykhw;wk; bra;tJ Fwpj;J
,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiwaplk; chpa ,irtpidg;
bgw;W eltof;ifnkw;bfhs;s ntz;o nfhg;g[ epYitapy;
cs;sJ/
8/ kDjhuhpd; nfhhpf;ifapd; (ePjpg;nghuhiz
kDtpy; fz;Ls;s kD) Jiz Rfhjhu epiyak; fl;llk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
fl;Lk; ,lj;ij khw;wf; nfhhpa[s;sJ jw;nghija epiyapy;
Vw;g[ilajpy;iy vdj; bjhptpj;Jk; nkYk; g[y vz;/255-
12-y; 0/41/5 Vh;!py; mjhtJ xU Vf;fhpy; Rkhh; 0/021-2
brd;l;jhd; (104 rJukPl;lh;jhd;) vLf;fg;gl;L fl;llKk;
fl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gjhYk;. kDjhuhpd; nfhhpf;if Vw;f
,ayhj epiy cs;sJ/ ,e;epiyapy; kDjhuhpd;
nfhhpf;ifapid js;Sgo bra;J ,jd;K:yk;
cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ”/
5. The petitioner submitted a further representation on 18.01.2017
demanding payment of compensation with interest for utilising the temple lands.
The representation of the petitioner was not considered, and hence the petitioner
has preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.15126 of 2017 to direct the 1st
respondent / District Collector to consider his representation dated 18.01.2017
and order for payment of compensation with interest for taking over an extent of
one Are under the Land Acquisition Act.
6. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.06.2017 directing the 1st
respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to such a
direction, an order dated 21.10.2017 was passed by the District Collector
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The relevant passage of the order
dated 21.10.2017 passed by the District Collector in e/f/M-2/10786/2014 is
extracted hereunder:
@8/ bguk;gYhh; khtl;lk;. Fd;dk; tl;lk;.
fPHg;bguk;gYhh; g[y vz;/ 255/12 ,y; 0.41.5 bcwf;nlh;
mUs;kpF ma;adhh; Rthkp nfhapy; vd fpuhk
fzf;Ffspy; tifg;gLj;jgl;Ls;s g[yk; bjhlh;ghf
kDjhuh; uhkuhR (1) jpU/nrhHd; (2) jpU/eluh$d; (3)
kw;Wk; jpU/bgha;abkhHp (4) MfpnahUf;Fk; ,e;J rka
mwepiyaj;Jiwf;Fk; ,ilna O.A.No.12/2009 ,y;
jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp ,iz Mizah; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rl;lg;gphpt[
63(gp)d; fPH; tprhuiz eilbgw;W tUtjhft[k;. ,jd;
mLj;j tprhuiz ehshd;W vjpUiu jhf;fy; bra;jpl
05.10.2017 md;W rk;ke;jg;gl;l vjph; kDjhuUf;F
cj;jutplg;gl;Ls;sjhf ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw
,iz Mizah; jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp mth;fspd; foj
vz;/12382/2008/M4/26.09.2017-,y; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
9/ vdnt. bguk;gYhh; khtl;lk;. Fd;dk; tl;lk;.
fPH;g;bguk;gYhh; g[y vz;/255-12-y; 0/41/5 bcwf;nlh;
mUs;kpF ma;adhh; Rthkp nfhapy; vd
tifg;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;s g[yk; ahUf;F brhe;jk; vd
O.A.No.12/2009-,y; gfug;gLk; jPh;g;gpd; mog;gilapy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
g[jpajhf kD bra;Jbfhs;s ghpfhuk; njof;bfhs;s ,jd;
K:yk; cj;jutplg;[email protected]/
Thus, it is evident that the 1st respondent has presumed that there is
dispute in connection with the ownership or title to the land which was acquired
by the respondents between the petitioner's Group and H.R. & C.E. Department
in O.A.No.12 of 2009 which is pending before the Joint Commissioner of HR &
CE, Tiruchirapalli.
7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent has
referred to the judgment dated 07.06.2021 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in a batch of cases suo moto writ petition in W.P.No.574 of 2015 and
another connected matters wherein it was observed that the State Government or
the Commissioner of the HR & CE Department who are the Trustee /
Administrator of the temple lands shall not alienate or give away the lands
contrary to the wish of the donor. It was further observed that the lands should
always remain with the temple. The temple lands, over which the interest of a
community of people of a religious denomination rests, shall not be used for
general public purposes. Even though this Court is not inclined to accept the
view expressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench as regards to the scope of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
acquisition of land belonging to religious institution for a public purpose, the land
which the 3rd respondent has encroached into and put up construction is a temple
property, and as such it cannot be taken lightly. As per the direction of this
Court, referred to earlier, all encroachments shall be removed.
8. The District Collector on the earlier occasion dated 24.07.2016 rejected
the representation of the petitioner as if the temple lands can be utilised for any
other public purpose without acquisition. Further, it is has been asserted that by
way of transfer from HR & CE Department to Health Department, the land
belonging to the temple or religious institution can be conveyed in favour of
another department. The land belonging to a religious institution is not a property
of the Government. This has been held in several cases of this Court earlier.
9. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st
respondent submitted that the representation of the petitioner has already been
rejected by appropriate orders and therefore, the order of the 1st respondent
District Collector ought to have been challenged and the prayer in the writ
petition with a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus cannot be entertained.
The submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
countenanced. The District Collector has not even applied her mind while
passing orders. She cannot distribute lands belonged to temple to the local
authority. As Inspector of panchayat, she is expected to pass orders directing the
local body to hand over the land to the temple. When the title of temple is not in
dispute, the indifferent attitude with which the representation of the petitioner are
dealt with, is deprecated. Even a worshipper can maintain a civil action to protect
the property of temple. The temple's land shall be restored.
10. In view of the same this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition
in the following lines:-
(a) the 3rd respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
immediately to the temple by way of damages for the use and occupation of the
temple land by encroachment which may be adjusted after passing final order
fixing amount towards damage for use and occupation of temple lands.
(b) the District Collector shall initiate surcharge proceedings against the 3rd
respondent for recovery of the sum as may be fixed by the Joint Commissioner in
terms of Section 78(5) of the Act till the property is taken possession, since the
land belonged to the temple has been encroached without any authority or
authorisation from the competent authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
(c) the District Collector is directed to ensure handing over the premises
within the period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
after finding alternative accommodation for the primary health centre stated to be
functioning in the building constructed by the 3rd respondent in the temple lands.
Failing which, the 2nd respondent is directed to initiate action for removal of
encroachment by resorting to Section 78 and Section 79 of Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and to fix the amount recoverable as
damages for use and occupation, for the entire period.
(d) the District Collector who passed the order rejecting the
representations owes an explanation for her recalcitrant attitude. In this regard
the person who was holding the position as District Collector at the time when
the representation of the petitioner was rejected shall submit a Report offering
her explanation as how she was misled so that this Court may pass further
directions to prevent possible recurrence in future by unscrupulous functionaries
of the State. The Report shall reach this Court within six weeks. The disposal of
this writ petition is subject to passing further orders or direction on the report of
District Collector which shall be filed on or before 22.12.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
11. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.11.2022
cda
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
To
1.The District Collector,
Perambalur District,
Perambalur.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Perambalur District.
3.The President,
Keezha Perambalur Panchayat,
Keezha Perambalur,
Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District.
S.S.SUNDAR. J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
cda
W.P.No.21349 of 2022
03.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
