Madras High Court
L.Subramanian vs The Commissioner on 5 April, 2023
2023:MHC:1642
WP No.2769 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05-04-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.2769 of 2023
And
WMP Nos.2886 and 2889 of 2023
L.Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034.
2.Arulmigu Vaidyanathaswami Temple
Represented by its Executive Officer,
Thirumazhapadi Village,
Ariyalur Taluk and District-621 851. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
the second respondent pertaining to the Notice dated 13.01.2023 and quash
the same in respect of S.Nos.380/3 and 181/14, Annimangalam Village,
Ariyalur Taluk and District and consequently forbear the respondents, their
men, representatives and agents from interfering with petitioner's possession
and enjoyment of the aforesaid lands situate in S.Nos.380/3 and 181/14,
Annimangalam Village, Ariyalur Taluk and District.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Valliappan,
Senior Counsel for
M/s.PV Law Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan,
Special Government Pleader
(HR&CE).
ORDER
The Auction Notice issued by the second respondent in
proceedings dated 13.01.2023, is sought to be quashed in the present writ
petition.
2. The petitioner states that the property is situated at
Annimangalam Village, Ariyalur Taluk and District comprised in
S.Nos.380/3 measuring to an extent of 1.82.00 Ares and S.No.181/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
measuring to an extent of 0.41.00 Ares, which are originally belonged to
Arulmigu Vinayagar Temple and Arulmigu Mariamman Temple vide Patta
Nos.4 and 15 respectively.
3. The petitioner further states that he was a tenant in respect of
the temple property and earlier he filed Civil Suit in OS No.1279 of 1980 on
the file of the District Munsiff Court at Ariyalur, seeking the relief of
permanent injunction against one Mr.Govindasamy and another. However,
in the said suit, the Temple Authority or the HR&CE Department, was not a
party.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that
petitioner is a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Act, 1965 and therefore, he is
entitled to have possession in respect of the temple property, which is said
to be auctioned through the impugned Auction Notice dated 13.01.2023.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondents raised an objection by stating that the petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
not a tenant and there is no lease in favour of the petitioner. In the absence
of any valid lease, the petitioner is not entitled to continue in possession and
the Authorities have already initiated action to auction the property
belonged to the temple by issuing Notifications. The Authorities have given
an option to the petitioner to participate in the auction proceedings, if he is
otherwise eligible. However, the petitioner, instead of participating in the
auction proceedings, has filed the present writ petition.
6. The claim regarding the petitioner that he is the cultivating
tenant, this Court has considered the issue in WP No.13180 of 2022 dated
19.05.2022 and the relevant paragraphs 10 to 13, read as under:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
the Central Act cannot override the provisions of
the Special Act. In such circumstances, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
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 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
7. In the present case, the petitioner could not establish that he
was recorded as a cultivating tenant in the Temple Register. The
proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Tenancy Act, has
no avail in respect of the claim of the petitioner regarding the property
governed under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act.
8. The proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer reveals
that the petitioner has not paid any rent to the temple. However, the
petitioner states that he has paid rent to the temple.
9. May that as it be, the temple properties are governed under
the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and
Endowments Act and the petitioner is not holding any valid lease in respect
of the temple property.
10. The petitioner has given an option to participate in the
auction proceedings to be conducted by the Competent Authorities. In the
absence of any valid lease in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
claim possession for an indefinite period and more-so the petitioner is in
possession of the subject property for several years.
11. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
which is the Special Act, governing the temple properties, would prevail
over the General Laws and therefore, in the absence of any valid lease in
favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, the petitioner cannot claim any right of
possession in respect of the temple property.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of V.Angu vs. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and Others
[MANU/TN/1396/2016], wherein the appellant was considered as a
cultivating tenant and therefore, he was protected under the Tamil Nadu
Public Trusts (Regulations of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act,
1961. However, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, which is the Special Act, would prevail over the General
Laws that any person claiming the property right in respect of the temple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
properties, has to establish that he has been granted with lease or tenancy by
the Competent Authorities under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act. Thus the very claim set out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is untenable. More-so, the name of the petitioner
has not been recorded in the Temple Register either as a 'Lessee' or as a
'Cultivating Tenant'.
13. This being the factum established, the petitioner is not
entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the auction proceedings
by following the procedures as contemplated. In the event of the petitioner's
participating in the auction proceedings, the Authorities may allow the
petitioner to participate in the auction proceedings scheduled to be held on
06.04.2023.
14. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to hand
over the possession of the temple property to the respondents, enabling
them to complete the auction process in the manner known to law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
15. With the abovesaid direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05-04-2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
To
The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.2769 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 2769 of 2023
05-04-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
