Madras High Court
S.Sakthivel vs The Executive Officer on 16 September, 2022
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :16.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
S.Sakthivel ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Sornamugeswarar-
Arulmigu Muthumariyamman Temples.
Katpadi Road,
Gandhi Nagar,
Vellore-6,
Vellore District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the
respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent
to permit the petitioner to continue enjoyment of the Lease of property
situated at Kazhinjur Village, Vellore District bearing Survey No.71
measuring about 1.50 Acres and Survey No.72 measuring about 1.4
Acres as per the terms and condition of the auction dated 16.06.2010.
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondent : Mr.S.Raj Ganesh
for Mr.A.V.Ilango
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records of the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the
respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent
to permit the petitioner to continue enjoyment of the Lease of property
situated at Kazhinjur Village, Vellore District bearing Survey No.71
measuring about 1.50 Acres and Survey No.72 measuring about 1.4
Acres as per the terms and conditions of the auction dated 16.06.2010.
2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner participated in the public auction and he was given lease of
the land owned by the respondent temple bearing Survey No.71,
measuring about 1.50 Acres and Survey No.72 measuring about 1.4 acres
of dry lands for a period of three Fasli commencing from 06.06.2010
from the date of auction. When the matter stood thus, the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
without any show cause notice cancelled the lease granted to him vide its
notice dated 07.11.2013 and started re-auctioning of the said land, hence
he sought to quash the order of the respondent dated 07.11.2013.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has originally participated in the auction held on 06.06.2010 and was the
successful bidder and he was also paying the lease amount regularly,
whereas, the respondent had issued an impugned notice dated
07.11.2013, stating that the lease was granted only for a period of three
years from the date of original auction and hence they have decided to
conduct fresh auction of the property.
4. The respondent in its counter stated that the writ petition is not
maintainable as there was no cause of action. The lease auction dated
16.06.2010 was only for a period of three years namely fasli 1420-1422
commencing from 16.06.2010 and after the said period of expiry, the
petitioner has no right in the said land and subsequently the land in
question was auctioned off for a period of three years fasli 1423 – 1425
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
under Auction dated 13.12.2013 and the petitioner did not participate in
the same, hence oppose the said writ petition.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while the
petitioner continued to be in possession of the land, without any
sufficient opportunity to show cause, lease has been cancelled and further
auction was sought to be conducted by the respondent vide impugned
notice dated 07.11.2013.
6.On a perusal of the conditions imposed for the lease of auction, it
is clearly stated that it is only a licence granted to pluck the coconuts, and
collect the broken coconuts at the temple for a period of three years. The
said auction took place on 06.06.2010 and after the auction, the
petitioner who was the successful bidder was granted licence for a
period of three years which has also expired. After the expiry,
subsequent auction was conducted and in the subsequent auction the
petitioner did not participate. Hence, the petitioner has no right to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
question the subsequent auction and cannot claim that he is in possession
of the land.
7.The auction notice dated 01.06.2010 and the conditions of the
auction make it clear that the temple has auctioned the property for a
period of three years namely fasli 1420-1422 commencing from
16.06.2010 and the licence is given only for plucking the coconuts and
collect the broken coconuts at the temple premises. Clause 8 of the
auction condition makes it clear that it is only a licence provided to the
successful bidder and it is not a lease and that the licence is also only for
a period of three years.
8.Now, it is stated by the respondent that after the expiry of the
licence granted to the petitioner, subsequent auction was conducted on
13.12.2013 and one T.Mahesh has been the successful bidder. A copy of
the auction register is also produced before this Court, which clearly
shows that Mr.T.Mahesh is given a licence in public auction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
9.When the petitioner was granted only licence and that the licence
period has also expired already, subsequent auction was conducted by the
temple authorities and a new licensee took possession of the property, the
petitioner having no legal rights in the property based on the licence
which has already expired cannot question the notice inviting the
cancellation of the licence period, as the auction condition explicitly says
that the licence can be cancelled by the temple authorities at any time.
Therefore, when the subsequent auction took place and the licence was
granted to a new bidder, the petitioner cannot claim any right. The
learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1997) 1 SCC 121 (Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation V. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others),
wherein it has held that if immediate action is taken soon after the
encroachment is made, compliance with principles of natural justice is
not called for, but once the encroachers are well settled for a long time,
normally two weeks' or ten days' notice preceding the action would meet
the fairness of the procedure. The above judgment is not applicable to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
case on hand as no documents have been filed to prove the petitioner's
continued possession of the said land.
10.In such view of the matter, the petitioner has no right over the
temple property. This writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
16.09.2022
kas
Index: yes / no
Internet: yes / no
Speaking / Non speaking
To
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Sornamugeswarar-
Arulmigu Muthumariyamman Temples.
Katpadi Road,
Gandhi Nagar,
Vellore-6,
Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
kas
W.P.No.33907 of 2013
and M.P.No.2 of 2013
16.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
