Madras High Court
Arulmigu Meinindranath Swami ... vs The Joint Commissioner on 23 June, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD)No.6251 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.5942, 5944 and 5945 of 2023
Arulmigu Meinindranath Swami Kovil,
Keeramangalam,
represented by its Hereditary Trustee,
R.Sakkaravarthy,
Pudukottai District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Thanjavur.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate Campus,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The Executive Officer,
Keeramangalam Town Panchayat,
Keeramangalam, Alangudi,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
(R3 was suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 21.03.2023)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the proceedings of the fourth respondent made in
Na.Ka.No.165 of 2022, dated 01.03.2023 and consequently, to direct the
second and fourth respondents not to allow any persons to put up any
form of construction or vehicle parking in S.F.No.230/2 situated at
Keeramangalam, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.Baalu Sundaram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Paranjothi
For R1 :Mr.P.Subburaj
Special Government Pleader
For R2 and R3 :Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 :Mr.G.Mathavan
For R5 :Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
*****
ORDER
Heard Mr.K.Baalu Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr.R.Paranjothi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Subbaraj,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent, Mr.J.Ashok,
learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3,
Mr.G.Mathavana, learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent
and Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar, learned Government Advocate for the fifth
respondent.
2.This Writ Petition has been filed by Arulmighu Meinindranath
Swami Kovil at Keeramangalam, represented by its Hereditary Trustee,
R.Sakkaravarthy. The Temple is situated at Alangudi Taluk in
Pudukottaia District.
3.Even before proceeding further, this Court must place its
appreciation on the petitioner for pursuing and for protecting the right of
the Temple so far as the land of the Temple are concerned . It is to be
also noted that the petitioner had been litigating to protect the right not
only before this Court, but also in a civil suit in O.S.No.25 of 1996
instituted on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi and later in
A.S.No.10 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Court at
Pudukottai and finally in S.A.No.554 of 2002 on the file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
By a judgment 19.01.2022 in S.A.No.554 of 2002 [Arulmighu
Meinindranath Swami Kovil at Keeramangalam, represented by
Parambarai Trustee vs R.Chakravarthy vs Executive Officer,
Keeramangalam Town Panchayat and others] a learned Single Judge of
this Court, while adjudicating the issue relating to the property of the
Temple, had stated as follows:
“12. The issue now arises for consideration is whether the
finding of this Court with regard to the classification of Survey No.
230/2 as a Temple Tank will entitle the plaintiff to pursue the prayer
for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The deposition of
P.W.1 and the Commissioner's report and plan filed as C1 and C2 will
clearly indicate that several Government offices have been constructed
in Survey No.230/2 and most of the constructions are more than 30
years old when the suit was filed. The trustees of the temple have never
raised any objection. That apart, the defendants have filed Exhibits B.6
to B.14 to indicate that the usufruct of the coconut trees were leased
out and tender was issued by the Government authorities for removing
the Karuvela trees in Survey No.230/2. These documents are of the
years between 1977 to 1989. No objection has been raised by the
plaintiff trustees when these auctions were carried out. That apart, so
many constructions have come up in a portion of Survey No.230/2 at
the instance of the Government, which are more than 30 years old. The
plaintiff has not raised any objection at any point of time. The present
objection from the plaintiff has emanated only after the proposal for
constructing a bus stand was initiated. The documents filed on the side
of the defendants will clearly establish that the proposal for
construction of the bus stand was started around 17 years prior to the
filing of the suit. The plaintiff has chosen to approach the Civil Court
at the fag end of the completion of the construction of the bus stand. In
view of the above said findings, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to a
prayer for mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions,
which are more than 30 years.
13. The Commissioner in his report and plan, which are
marked as C1 and C2 has shown a green marked portion in Survey No.
230/2, which is adjacent to the suit temple. The said green marked
portion is lying vacant without any construction. The defendants in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
para 3 of the written statement have categorically admitted that the
temple tank portion is in existence in the northern portion and west of
the present bus stand in Survey No.230/2. The defendants have also
submitted a plan indicating the existence of various buildings along
with the written statement. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed
at the instance of the defendants. When the Advocate Commissioner
visited, the learned counsel for the defendants has pointed out that
only the low lying area is the Temple Tank. Hence, the combined
reading of the written statement of the defendants and Commissioner's
report will indicate that a portion of Survey No.230/2 continues to be a
tank belonging to the plaintiff temple. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court in various judgment have categorically held that the
tanks have to be preserved for the future generation and any
encroachment in the said water body should be removed. In the present
case, the plaintiffs have approached the Civil Court after a period of
30 years when almost most of the constructions have been completed
by the Government.
14. The First Appellate Court has erroneously reversed the
judgment and decree of the trial Court granting a lesser relief in
favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has misdirected itself
in giving a finding that during resurvey and settlement proceedings,
Survey No.230/2 have been classified as a Pond Poramboke. This
finding is factually incorrect. Exhibit A.1 is an extract of the register of
resurvey and settlement proceedings, which clearly indicate that
Survey No.230/2 is Sivan Temple Tank. Hence, the finding of the First
Appellate Court that the plaintiffs have not objected to the
reclassification during settlement proceedings is not legally
sustainable.
15. In view of the above said discussion, the substantial
questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant. The judgment
and decree of the First Appellate Court made in A.S.No.10 of 1998 is
set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial Court made in O.S.No,
25 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi is
restored. The Second Appeal is allowed. No costs.”
4.In effect, the judgment in the Second Appeal, which is now
binding on all the parties to this Writ Petition, is that the respondents are
entitled to 68 cents of lands as demarcated in the report of the Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Commissioner. The respondents cannot move outside the said 68 cents
of land. Their possession has to be restricted only within the said 68
cents of lands.
5.Even before proceeding further, the representation of the learned
Senior Counsel that to avoid future litigation, that the said 68 cents of
lands should be marked with boundary stones is also taken note of by this
Court and a direction is given that the said 68 cents may be marked with
boundary stones with the help of Revenue Authorities and in the
presence of the petitioner herein. The petitioner may also cooperate for
that and therefore, the 68 cents would be demarcated once and for all.
6.In the Writ Petition, the petitioner had sought Certiorarified
Mandamus to be issued relating to the proceeding of the fourth
respondent/Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai
District, dated 01.03.2023 and for a consequential direction that the
respondents should not be allowed to put up any form of construction or
vehicle parking in S.F.No.230/2 at Keeramangalam, Alangudi Taluk,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pudukottai District. This particular property was the subject matter of the
litigation in the Second Appeal. It had been conclusively held in the
Second Appeal that the respondents are entitled to 68 cents in the said
property.
7.The necessity for filing the Writ Petition arose because the
respondents were attempting to put up a cycle stand adjacent to the
existing bus stand. It was apprehended by the petitioner that the
respondents would be putting up the cycle stand beyond the area of 68
cents. But it is made clear that they can put up the cycle stand within the
area of 68 cents and should not go outside the area of 68 cents and
should conform to the decree of Civil Court. That decree is binding on
all the parties.
8.Before this Court, a survey was directed to be conducted by the
Tahsildar, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District and by the Executive
Officer, HR & CE, Aranthangi in Pudukottai District. Notice was also
directed to the petitioner. A survey was conducted and the area of 68
cents was clearly demarcated. It had also been stated by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Counsels for the respondents that the respondents would not go beyond
the area of 68 cents. A detailed plan had also been forwarded to the
Court. The said plan is also annexed as a copy to this order.
9.In the said plan, the marked portions 5 and 6 belongs to the
respondent/Town Panchayat and they can utilise that particular land and
not go outside the said land. That prohibition is issued as against the
respondent/Town Panchayat and let both the parties respect the
boundaries of their lands. I hope that this would put to an end to the
litigation, which had commenced in the year 1996. The respondents may
make sure that they simultaneously fix the boundary stones and after that
commence construction.
10.The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index :Yes / No 23.06.2023
Internet :Yes
NCC : Yes/No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Thanjavur.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate Campus,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District.
5.The Executive Officer,
Keeramangalam Town Panchayat,
Keeramangalam, Alangudi,
Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.6251 of 2023
23.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
