Madras High Court
N.Palanichamy vs The Commissioner (Hr&Ce) on 11 September, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.5309 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.5309 of 2023
N.Palanichamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner (HR&CE),
HR&CE Department,
Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai- 34.
2.The Joint Commissioner (HR&CE),
HR&CE Department, Dindigul District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner (HR&CE),
HR&CE Department, Dindigul District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Bathrakaliamman and
Meenakshi Amman Temple,
Ambathurai Village, Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul.
Presently in charge of
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Srinivasa Perumal Thirukovil, Malayadivarm,
Dindigul.
5.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.5309 of 2023
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Chinnalapatti,
Dindigul District.
7.The Tahsildar,
Aathur Taluk, Ambadurai Village,
Dindigul District. .... Respondents
(R7 suo-motu impleaded vide Court
order dated 13.03.2023)
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 6th Respondent to
register the Sale Deed in relation to Petitioner's property in S.No.14/13 to an
extent of 1020 sq.ft. of land situated at Amnaduri Village, Aathur Taluka, Dindigul
District and further declare that the Respondents 1 to 4 have no right or claim in
relation to any portion of land in S.No.14/13.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Loganathan
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3
Mr.M.Siddharthan,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R5&R6
Mr. A.N.Ramanathan for R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the 6th Respondent to register the Sale Deed in relation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Petitioner's property in S.No.14/13 to an extent of 1020 sq.ft. of land situated at
Amnaduri Village, Aathur Taluka, Dindigul District and further declare that the
respondents 1 to 4 have no right or claim in relation to any portion of land in S.No.
14/13.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father has purchased
a portion of the property to an extent of 1020 sq. ft. in S.No.14/1, Ambadurai
Village, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul District under a sale deed dated 13.03.2022 and he
has executed a Will dated 28.02.2011 in favour of the petitioner's mother. The
petitioner's mother had executed a gift settlement deed in respect of subject
property in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has executed a sale
deed. When the petitioner has presented the said sale deed for registration, the
same was refused to be registered on the ground that objection has been received
from the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking
for a direction to the 6th respondent to register the sale deed executed by the
petitioner.
3. Except 7th respondent, the other respondents have not filed their
counter affidavit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. It is the stand of the temple authorities that the property originally
belonged to the temple and the total extent of the subject property is 7.84 cents of
lands. One of the trustees of the temple has leased out the property, which has
been challenged by the other trustees in O.S.No.302 of 1961 and the suit was
decreed, as against the same an appeal was filed in A.S.No.156 of 1963 and the
same was also dismissed. Challenging the same, S.A.No.168 of 1965 was filed
before this Court. In the said appeal, a compromise said to have been taken place
with the approval of the Commissioner, wherein the subject property was given up
by the temple in view of the amount fixed by the Commissioner. According to the
learned counsel, only an extent of 3.44 acres are the subject matter of the
compromise, whereas the entire extent of 7.84 acres have been converted into
plots and sold to various persons. Hence, opposed this Writ Petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
temple retain only 10 cents and the remaining lands have already been sold to
various persons.
6. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
either side and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the communication dated
30.03.2010 sent by the temple authorities to the District Registrar makes it clear
that only 10 cents alone is retained by the temple. Further, it is also brought to the
notice of this Court that various writ petitions have already been filed before this
Court in respect of the subject property. In W.P.(MD)No.7347 of 2018, this Court
has considered the rival contentions and allowed the writ petition. Now the
contention raised by the respondents that the very proceedings of the
Commissioner is not available in file and sanction should be given only under
Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959 and not under Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959. It is relevant to note that whether sanction is properly
granted or not cannot be decided at this stage. When this Court recorded the
compromise, based on the proceedings of the Commissioner, if the temple
authorities is of the view that there is no such proceedings, they ought to have
challenged the very compromise decree. They have slept over the issue for several
years. Thereafter, various transactions have been made in respect of the subject
properties. First time, they have sent communication to the District Registrar on
30.03.2010 indicating that the temple has retained only 10 cents in the subject
property. Therefore, requested not to register any document. Challenging the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
same, several writ petitions have been filed before this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.
1084 of 2015, 7347 of 2018, 22347 of 2019 and 18797 of 2016 and this Court
after carefully considered the rival submissions allowed the Writ Petitions.
Therefore, it is for the temple to establish their right in a proper manner. Merely
on the basis of giving an objection letter to the District Registrar, the temple
cannot supersede judgment of this Court passed in the second appeal. If the
temple is of the definite view that there was no proceedings of the Commissioner
and the same has been created only for the purpose of compromise, the remedy of
the temple is not before the Writ Court and they have to file necessary suit before
the competent civil Court. Without doing so, merely on raising objections, they
cannot defeat the right of the parties, which have already been created pursuant to
the decree of the civil Court.
8. In view of the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed and
the 6th respondent is directed to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner,
within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There
shall be no order as to costs.
vsm 11.09.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Commissioner (HR&CE),
HR&CE Department,
Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai- 34.
2.The Joint Commissioner (HR&CE),
HR&CE Department, Dindigul District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner (HR&CE),
HR&CE Department, Dindigul District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Bathrakaliamman and
Meenakshi Amman Temple,
Ambathurai Village, Aathur Taluk,
Dindigul.
Presently in charge of
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Srinivasa Perumal Thirukovil, Malayadivarm,
Dindigul.
5.The District Registrar,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Chinnalapatti,
Dindigul District.
7.The Tahsildar,
Aathur Taluk, Ambadurai Village,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vsm
11.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
