Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukovil vs /
2024 Latest Caselaw 11062 Mad

Madras High Court

Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukovil vs / on 28 June, 2024

Author: C.Saravanan

Bench: C.Saravanan

                                                                           W.P.(MD) No.13845 of 2024

                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 28.06.2024

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

                                              W.P.(MD) No.13845 of 2024
                                                        and
                                             W.M.P.(MD) No.12176 of 2024

                 Arulmighu Mariamman Thirukovil,
                 Irukkankudi,
                 through its Executive Officer,
                 Sathur Taluk,
                 Virudhunagar District.                                ... Petitioner

                                                        /vs./

                 1.The District Collector,
                   Office of Collectorate,
                   Virudhunagar,
                   Virudhunagar District.

                 2.The Assistant Director,
                   Village Panchayat,
                   Virudhunagar.

                 3.The Block Development Officer,
                   Sattur Taluk,
                   Virudhunagar District.

                 4.Irukkankudi Village Panchayat,
                   through its Executive Officer,


                 1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              W.P.(MD) No.13845 of 2024

                    Sattur Taluk,
                    Virudhunagar District.

                 5.Nathathupatti Village Panchayat,
                   through its Executive Officer,
                   Sattur Taluk,
                   Virudhunagar District.                                  ... Respondents

                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                 issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
                 the Impugned show cause notice the 4th respondent on 24.05.2024 issued under
                 Rule 34 of the TN Panchayats Building Rules, 1997 and quash the same and
                 consequently direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the issue by
                 considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.05.2024, within the time limit
                 as may fixed by this Court.

                                  For Petitioner   : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan

                                  For R1 & R2      : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
                                                         Special Government Pleader

                                  For R3           : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar
                                                         Government Advocate

                                  For R4 & R5      : Mr.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for
                                                         M/S.Ajmal Associates

                                                        ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 24.05.2024 issued

by the fourth respondent Panchayat calling upon the petitioner to show cause as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

to why as per the provisional order dated 24.05.2024, the petitioner should be

directed to demolish the construction made so far without obtaining planning

permission and to stop further construction.

2.The dispute pertains to the land in S.No.933, Irukkankudi Village,

Virudhunagar District, where the subject temple is situated. According to the

petitioner, the old shops abutting the temple premises were in dilapidated

condition and therefore, fresh constructions had to be made pursuant to the orders

passed by this Court in W.A.(MD) No.710 of 2018 vide order dated 14.09.2021.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute had

arisen as to whether the aforesaid land in S.No.933, Irukkankudi Village,

Virudhunagar District, fell within the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent

Panchayat or the fifth respondent Panchayat. The fifth respondent had earlier

approached the Principal District Munsif Court at Sattur in O.S.No.2 of 2008, in

the light of the Government Order in Kamarajar District Gazette No.5 dated

26.05.1995.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.It is submitted that the suit was between the fourth respondent Panchayat

and the fifth respondent Panchayat and that the suit came to be dismissed on

29.10.2012.

5.It is submitted that aggrieved by the same, the fifth respondent has filed

an appeal before the Appellate Court in A.S.No.59 of 2012, which is pending

consideration as on date before the Sub Court, Sivakasi. It is further submitted

that another suit was also filed by few villagers for similar relief in O.S.No.32 of

2021 before the District Court, Srivilliputhur and the suit was also dismissed on

21.06.2022 and an appeal is pending before this Court in A.S.(MD)No.124 of

2024.

6.Arguing further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

in view of the dispute regarding the jurisdiction as to whether the petitioner is

required to obtain permission from the fourth respondent or the fifth respondent,

the petitioner had sent a representation to the first respondent, who is the

Inspector of Panchayat on 29.01.2021 to clarify as to whether the petitioner falls

within the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent or the fifth respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7.It is submitted that the said representation has still not evoked any

response from the first respondent. It is further submitted that on 30.05.2024, the

petitioner had also sent copies of the proposed plan before commencing the

construction to the first respondent with a request to forward the same to the

competent respondent, who is competent to sanction the plan. However, till date

no action has been taken by the first respondent.

8.It is therefore submitted that in the light of the confusion and in the light

of the directions of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.710 of 2018 dated 14.09.2021,

constructions have commenced.

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fourth

respondent had issued the demand notice for property tax and therefore, the

petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.15121 of 2023 and has

secured an interim order and that pursuant to the order of this Court, the amounts

have been directed to be deposited with the Assistant Director of Panchayat.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10.The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention to the issues

framed by the trial Court. Issue No.6 in O.S.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the

Principal District Munsif Court, Sattur reads as under:

“6.fhkuh[u; khtl;l nf[l; 26.5.1995 Cu;[pjj;jpw;F tutpy;iy vd;Wk; rl;lg;gb nry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd;W vjpu;thjp fWtJ rupah?”

11.He would also draw attention to the answer of the learned Principal

District Munsif in the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2012, wherein it has been

held that the said Kamarajar District Gazette No.5 dated 26.05.1995 has not come

into force.

12.On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent

defending the stand of the fourth respondent would submit that in the light of the

decision of the learned Principal District Munsif, which has not been disturbed till

date, it is the fourth respondent, which is a competent authority both under the

erstwhile Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 as also under the

provisions of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13.That apart, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the entire civic

activity in S.No.933, Irukkankudi Village, Virudhunagar District, where the

temple is situated, is undertaken by the fourth respondent Panchayat. That apart, it

is submitted that the professional tax is also paid by the petitioner.

14.It is submitted that the petitioner temple has itself issued a circular dated

18.09.2020, wherein the petitioner has exhorted all its employees to pay the tax

directly to the fourth respondent temple. That apart, it is submitted that water is

also supplied by the fourth respondent and therefore, there is no merits in the

present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned notice dated 24.05.2024.

15.By way of rejoinder, the learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent

would submit that A.S.No.59 of 2012 was dismissed and an application to restore

the appeal suit is pending before the Sub Court, Sivakasi.

16.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

aforesaid application to restore the appeal suit was allowed and the appeal has

been restored to the file of Sub Court, Sivakasi in A.S.No.59 of 2012.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2,

learned Government Advocate for the third respondent and the learned Senior

Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.

18.Prima facie, the attempt of the petitioner to put up a construction on

account of the prevailing confusion as to the jurisdiction would not entitle the

petitioner to start the construction without getting approval. The petitioner could

have approached the Division Bench for clarification in the order passed in W.A.

(MD) No.710 of 2018, in the light of pendency of the appeal suit in A.S.No.59 of

2012 on the file of Sub Court, Sivakasi, against the judgment and decree dated

29.10.2012 of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sattur in O.S.No.2 of 2008.

19.Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and

taking judicial notice of the fact that the construction has been put up by the

petitioner out of the natural resources, which are utilized, demolition cannot be

ordered.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

20.The planning permission, which was sent by the petitioner to the first

respondent on 30.05.2024, is directed to be filed before the fourth respondent

Panchayat. The fourth respondent Panchayat shall examine the same and see

whether it meets out the requirements of Tamil Nadu Combined Development and

Building Rules, 2019.

21.If the construction is otherwise in order, the petitioner may continue

with the construction. In case, there are any deviations noticed, it is open for the

fourth respondent to stall further construction by the petitioner or to make such

changes as may be required to ensure that the construction meets the requirement

of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019. This will

be without prejudice to the rights of the fifth respondent in A.S.No.59 of 2012. In

case, any amount is to be collected towards the services provided by the fourth

respondent, the amounts will have to be transferred to the fifth respondent.

22.It is made clear that the petitioner shall furnish all the documents, which

the petitioner should have filed either before the fourth respondent or before the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

fifth respondent for putting up the construction with the fourth respondent. In

case, any deviation is noticed at that stage, the fourth respondent can intervene

and issue fresh notice for stalling the construction.

23.The petitioner shall also file papers with the fourth respondent and pay

necessary charges with the fourth respondent within a period of 15 days from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fourth respondent shall pass suitable

orders on the application to be filed by the petitioner within a period of 15 days

thereafter.

24.The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. No costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

                 Index : Yes / No                                                 28.06.2024
                 Internet : Yes / No
                 mm

                 To

                 1.The District Collector,
                   Office of Collectorate,



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis


                    Virudhunagar,
                    Virudhunagar District.

                 2.The Assistant Director,
                   Village Panchayat,
                   Virudhunagar.






https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis




                                         C.SARAVANAN, J.

                                                            mm









                                                    28.06.2024




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis