Madras High Court
Jahabar Ali vs The Commissioner/Principal on 21 March, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P No. 10671 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P No. 10671 of 2025 AND
WMP Nos. 12030 and 12026 OF 2025
Jahabar Ali
S/o. Rahamathullah, Park Stret,
Kuthalam Town Ansd Tlauk,
Mayiladuthurai Distirct
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Commissioner/principal
Secretary
Hindu Religious And Charitable And
Endowments Department,
Nungambakam, Chennai 600 004.
2.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious And Charitable
Endowment Department,
Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai
District
3.The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious And Charitable
Endowment Department,
Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai
District
4.Executive Enginner
Office Of Arulmigu Manmadeswarar
Sway Temple, Kuthalam Town
Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:24 pm )
1/6
W.P No. 10671 of 2025
... Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the
impugned order dated 13.02.2025 in M.P.No. 23/2016/E1 by the 2nd
respondent and quash the same consequently forbear the respondents
from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for
the property in S no. 176/2 to an extent of 9 cents situated at park
street, kuthalam talk and Mailaduthruai District and pass.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
-for RR 1 to 4
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
13.02.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.23/2016. By the said order, the petitioner
was directed to be evicted in exercise of the powers under Section 78 of
the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
2. Mr.K.Balu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in
this case, the petitioner has straight away filed the writ petition without
exhausting the alternative remedy because there is violation of principles
of natural justice. No proper enquiry as contemplated under Section
78(4) was conducted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:24 pm )
3. This Court, in the judgment in A.Ramamurthi and Others -vs-
Commissioner of HRCE and Others (2011 SCC Online Madras
1334), had directed a detailed enquiry including cross examination of the
witnesses. No such opportunity was given in the instant case, more
specifically, when the enquiry was proceeding, only on 07.02.2025 the
petitioner could lay his hands on certain documents which relate to the
year 1924 by which the Temple has exchanged the subject land in favour
of the petitioner's predecessor-in-title. When that is produced, no proper
opportunity was given to the petitioner to mark the document and to let
any such evidence. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel
submits that the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has
to be remitted back to the authority.
4. In reply thereof, the learned Special Government Pleader would
submit that the exchange did not happen with the petitioner or his
predecessor-in-title. Be that as it may. That question will be looked into
by the revisional authority.
5. I have considered the said submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:24 pm )
6. When the enquiry has been conducted, it could be seen that
witnesses have been examined and exhibits have been marked.
Therefore, it cannot be said that there is violation of Section 78(4) of the
Act. There is alternative remedy for the petitioner to file a revision as
against the order. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came
to know of certain documents at the fag end of the enquiry, only on
07.02.2025. In such a case, it may be a fair reason for the petitioner to
produce it as additional document before the revisional authority and the
revisional authority can also consider the effect of the document vis-a-vis
the case of the petitioner and take into consideration of the same.
7.Therefore, with the above observations and with a liberty to the
petitioner to file a revision under the Act as against the impugned order,
the writ petition stands disposed of. Since the time for filing revision
expires today and the petitioner has filed the writ petition, within one
week from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order, the petitioner
can file the revision and if it is filed within such time, the revisional
authority shall consider the same as filed within time and consider the
revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:24 pm )
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21-03-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
KST
To
1.The Commissioner/principal Secretary
Hindu Religious And Charitable And
Endowments Department, Nungambakam,
Chennai 600 004.
2.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowment
Department, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai
District
3.The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowment
Department, Mayiladuthurai,
Mayiladuthurai District
4.Executive EngineerEnginner
Office Of Arulmigu Manmadeswarar Sway
Temple, Kuthalam Town Taluk,
Mayiladuthurai District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:24 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J.
KST
21-03-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 02:11:24 pm )
