Madras High Court
Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
WA No.1014 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.03.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
WA No.1014 of 2023
and CMP No.10179 of 2023
Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar
Ammani Amman Madam, Rep. by its
Trustee, Amsammal, NO.9, Ammani
Amman Gopura Street, Tiruvannamalai. .. Appellant
-vs-
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Arulmighu Annamalaiyar Temple,
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner/Executive
Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment, Arulmighu Annamalaiyar
Temple, Tiruvannamalai.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruvannamalai District.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1014 of 2023
5. The Tahsildar,
Tiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.03.2023 passed in
W.P.No.9631 of 2023.
For the Appellant : Mr.Om Prakash
Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Veerapathiran
For the Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman
Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan,
Spl. Govt. Pleader, for RR 1 and 2
: Mr.P.Shunmugasundaram
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Shakeena for R-3
: Mr.Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar
State Government Pleader
Assisted by Mr.T.K.Saravanan,
Government Advocate, for RR 4 and 5
*****
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.Om Prakash, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General assisted by
Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader for
respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.P.Shumugasundaram, learned senior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State
Government Pleader, assisted by Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. The present appellant had challenged the order passed under
Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959. The said order was passed against the encroachers. The said
order was challenged by the present appellant basically on the premise
that if the encroachers failed to vacate and hand over the property to
the administration of the temple, then the Assistant Commissioner,
Tiruvannamalai, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR &
CE) Department is to be directed to remove the encroachment.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by
observing that if the petitioner/appellant is aggrieved with regard to
the right of title or ownership over the property, they have to approach
the Revisional Authority under Section 21 of the HR & CE Act.
4. Mr.Om Prakash, learned senior advocate for the appellant
submits that the property is required to be handed over to the Trust ad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not to the Temple. It is for that purpose the appellant had filed the
writ petition.
5. The learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1
and 2 and the learned senior advocate appearing for respondent No.3
submit that there is no dispute that upon removal of the
encroachment, the property should go back to the Trust. According to
them, the appellant is representing the Trust registered in the year
2011 whereas there is one old trust of the year 1784. It is further
submitted by them that the total area of the Mutt in question is 25247
sq.ft. and the order under Section 78 is passed against the persons
who are in unauthorised occupation of a portion of the said property.
6. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that under
Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, the order of eviction can be passed
against an encroacher or a person in unauthorised occupation. Since it
is a religious institution, the order has been passed. It appears that
error has cropped in while passing the order under Section 78 that the
same is to be handed over to the Temple. In fact, the same is
required to be handed over to the Trust. The order under Section 78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the effect that it is to be handed over to the Temple requires to be
modified to the extent that it is to be handed over to the Trust and the
conclusion that the said property belongs to the Temple cannot be
sustained. It would belong to the Trust. If the balance land is in
possession of a third party encroacher, action can be taken under
Section 78 against him also.
7. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate for respondent
No.3 that the structure that was demolished while demolishing the
encroachment area of the Mutt would be re-constructed.
With the aforesaid observation and modification, the writ appeal
stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
05.03.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(sra)
To
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Arulmighu Annamalaiyar Temple, Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner/Executive
Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment, Arulmighu Annamalaiyar
Temple, Tiruvannamalai.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruvannamalai District.
5. The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai District.
05.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
