Madras High Court
Arulmighu Thirukutralanatha ... vs The District Collector on 21 June, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.4945 of 2020
Arulmighu Thirukutralanatha Swamy Temple
Rep. by its Executive Officer,
Courtalam,
Tirunelveli District.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2.The Director,
Directorate of Panchayat,
7th and 8th Floor,
Santhome High Court,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai-600028.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tirunelveli District.
4.Assistant Director of Panchayat,
Perumalpuram,
Tirunelveli.
_________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
5.The Executive Officer,
Courtallam Special Grade Town Panchayat,
Courtallam,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first Respondent
to take suitable action against the 5th respondent directing him to
handover the possession and administration of the buildings and land at
Survey Nos.482/45 and 482/48, Courtallam Village, Tenkasi Taluk,
Tenkasi District.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thiyagarajan
For Respondent : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.JohnRajadurai
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
Mr.P.Mahendran for R5
****
ORDER
The instant case involves a Government body refusing to comply
with the decree of a civil Court.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
2. The facts are briefly set out herein below:-
The petitioner temple was constructed as early as in 1700 AD by
Chokkampatty Zamindars. The land and buildings in temple is situated
in Survey Nos.482/45 and 482/48 in Courtallam Village, Tenkasi. The
properties were acquired by the Government and the Government carried
out the Kattalai and maintained the temple and the buildings. Thereafter,
the properties were handed over to the District Board for its management.
After the board was abolished, the properties are in the hands of the
fourth respondent herein. On 26.03.1958, the then Township Committee
had passed a resolution to carry out the Kattalai properly. However, they
have failed to carry out the same. Since the Kattalai were not being
performed, the petitioner temple had filed a petition before the Deputy
Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Madurai, with regard to the
mismanagament of the properties. The petition later transferred to the
file of the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Tirunelveli and
was dismissed. However, the Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE
Department, Tirunelveli had suo motu initiated the proceedings in
O.A.No.51 of 1977 under Section 63(G) of HR&CE Act (hereinafter
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
called as 'the Act') to consider whether there are any grounds for
allocation of the trust properties in respect of the circular and religious
aspects of the trust. By order dated 22.01.1987, the Deputy
Commissioner had allowed the application and declared that the property
in Survey Nos.485/45 and 485/48 are religious charities to be performed
for the Arulmigu Thirukutralanathaswamy Temple, Courtallam and the
Executive Officer of the temple was directed to take over the
administration from the Township Committee of Courtallam with
immediate effect.
(ii) This order was challenged by the Executive Officer of the
Township Committee before the Commissioner, HR&CE Department,
Chennai, in A.P.No.79 of 1987. By order, dated 17.01.1991, the appeal
filed by the Executive Officer was dismissed. Thereafter, the fourth
respondent had filed O.S.No.165 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Sub
Court, Tenkasi, claiming that there was no ground to interfere with the
management of the temple with respect to the properties in dispute and
declaration that the Chokkampatti Chatram is religious in nature. The
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
petitioner had contested the suit claiming that the property comprised in
Survey No.482 in Courtallam Village is a minor inam granted to the
petitioner's temple by the Chokkampatti Zamindar to perform various
Kattalais and Mandakapadies for the petitioner temple. He had built a
temple therein for Sri Gomathi and Sri Sankaramoorthy Easwaran and
installed Vinayagar and Subramaniar deities and had also constructed a
Chatram for the pilgrims and a building called Valangaipuli Vilas for
conducting 6th day festival in the Tamil months of Margazhi, Chithrai,
and Ippasi.
(iii) The statutory suit in O.S.No.165 of 1993 was also dismissed
by judgment and decree, dated 20.12.1999, against which, an appeal in
A.S.No.989 of 2003 on the file of this Court was filed and ultimately, by
judgment and decree, dated 07.09.2018, the appeal suit was also
dismissed. Therefore, by reason of these orders, the fifth respondent was
liable to hand over the management and administration of the property to
the petitioner temple. Despite receiving the judgement and decree, the
fifth respondent had not come forward to hand over vacant possession.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
The petitioner, therefore, sent a letter, dated 12.04.2019, to the fifth
respondent calling upon them to hand over possession and administration
along with accounts with reference to the properties and the buildings in
Survey Nos.482/45 and 482/48 in Courtallam Village. The fifth
respondent had sent a reply dated 07.05.2019 disputing the disposal of
A.S.No.989 of 2003 and contending that action would be taken only after
receipt of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. In pursuance of the said
communication, the petitioner had sent a letter to the District Collector,
Tirunelveli, to take suitable action and to direct the fifth respondent to
hand over the possession. Despite the instruction of the District
Collector, the fifth respondent refused to hand over the possession,
constraining the petitioner to move this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that despite the fifth respondent having lost in all the fora, they are still
refusing to hand over the properties to the temple. Further, the Kattalais
are also not being performed.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
4. The learned Additional Advocate General would vehemently
submit that the petitioner had, instead of filing a execution proceeding,
moved this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. That
apart, the Government of Tamilnadu is not a party to the proceedings.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
6. The decree that has been passed in favour of the petitioner
herein is in a statutory suit filed under Section 70 of the Act and
therefore, an execution would not lie, as contemplated under Order 21 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The proprieties even according to the
respondents had been handed over to the fourth respondent, who has
filed the statutory suit challenging the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner and confirmed by the Commissioner, HR&CE
Department. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Additional
Advocate General cannot be countenanced. The right of the petitioner
has been established throughout and despite obtaining orders confirming
their rights as early in the year 1987, to-date the petitioner has not been
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
able to take possession of the property. Since there is no merit in the
defence of the respondents, this Writ Petition is allowed and the third
respondent shall effect the mutation of the revenue records in the name of
the petitioner in pursuant to the civil decree obtained by them and the
fifth respondent, who is now in occupation of the premises, shall vacate
and hand over the vacant possession of the property within three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the fifth respondent
does not vacate the premises, the first respondent shall ensure that the
property is vacated and handed over. No costs.
21.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
cp
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
To
1.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2.The Director,
Directorate of Panchayat,
7th and 8th Floor,
Santhome High Court,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai-600028.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tenkasi,
Tirunelveli District.
4.Assistant Director of Panchayat,
Perumalpuram,
Tirunelveli.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.4945of 2020
P.T.ASHA, J.
cp
W.P.(MD) No. 4945 of 2020
Dated:21.06.2023
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
