Disposed

Mr.C.Ramdass v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC19 Dec 2016WP/17871/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to complete a revenue record verification exercise within two months to reflect the correct title of lands alleged to belong to a temple. The petition seeking removal of encroachments was disposed of upon this direction.

What did the court decide?

Directed completion of revenue record verification for temple land within two months; petition disposed of.

Mr.C.Ramdass Vs State of Tamilnadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶7

W.P.No.17871 of 2011
C.RAMDASS .. Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS
& CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT
FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT
119, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD
CHENNAI-34.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT
TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT OFFICE
TIRUVALLUR – 602001.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT
TIRUVALLUR-602 001.
5. S.PRABHAKARAN
PRESIDENT, SOLAVARAM PANCHAYAT
SOLAVARAM. .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachments made in lands measuring about 1.22 Acres comprised in Survey No.40/1, Solavaram Village belonging to Arulmigu Agatheeswarar Temple, Solavaram and to initiate penal

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

action against the 5^th respondent and his men who had been instrumental and abetting the encroachment in the above said temple lands.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja Spl. Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3

¶12

Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
Spl. Government Pleader
for 4 th respondent.
No appearance
for 5 th respondent
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶13

The petitioner has prayed for directions to the first four respondents to remove encroachments made on land measuring about 1.22 Acres comprising in S.No.40/1, Solavaram Village, stated to be belonging to Arulmigu Agatheeswarar Temple, Solavaram and for action against the private fifth respondent, who is the President of the Panchayat, and is alleged to have abetted the encroachment.

¶14

2.1. A counter affidavit has now been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment/third respondent. It is stated that the temple is under the supervisory jurisdiction of the third respondent as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

¶15

2.2. Out of the total area of 11.55 Acres, 6.39 Acres is in S.No.296/1, where 6.18 Acres is covered by temple and tank. The remaining 0.21 Acres is occupied by 16 persons, for which ground rent is being paid. What is the matter of concern is that the affidavit goes on to state that the Tahsildar, without ascertaining the 'A' Register of the Village and other revenue records which show the land in the name of the deity of the temple, has granted patta under UDR Scheme for the sites and those persons had not paid any ground rent to the temple.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

2.3. In S.No.296/2, 0.54 Acres of land is leased out to one Varadhan for cash lease. 1.22 Acres in S.No.40/1 was leased out to four persons on cash lease. Finally, in S.No.69, out of 3.40 Acres, 2.27 Acres was leased out to one Madurai and remaining 1.13 Acres was leased out to the petitioner.

¶18

2.4. The fifth respondent and other villagers are stated to have shifted the site rent holders who had occupied an extent of 0.21 Acres in S.No.296/1 to S.No.40/1 and put up thatched huts without sanction of the temple authorities. The endeavor of temple authorities to remove the thatched huts with the assistance of police is stated to be in vain as they again put up the huts.

¶19

2.5. It is in these circumstances it is stated that to augment the resources the area has also been leased out and S.No.296/1 is now lying vacant, except the portion occupied by the petitioner, who obtained UDR patta from the revenue authorities. It is also stated that the revenue authorities are being approached for measurement and verification from records, as the UDR patta could not have been issued if it is temple land.

¶20

We direct the aforesaid exercise to be completed within two months from today to ensure that the revenue records correctly reflect the title.

¶21

The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sasi

¶23

To: 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT STATE OF TAMILNADU FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

THE COMMISSIONER

¶26

HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT 119, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD CHENNAI-34.

¶27

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT
TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT OFFICE
TIRUVALLUR – 602001.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT
TIRUVALLUR-602 001.
+1cc to Mr.S.S. Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.73938
mv(CO)
md(27/12/2016)
W.P.No.17871 of 2011

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.C.Ramdass v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.C.Ramdass v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federation of South Indian Vs Union of India

M/S R.K.v.Studioss (P) Ltd. Vs M/S Vijaya Medical and

M.Kalidoss, Vs The District Collector

S.Kumar Vs The District Collector

L.Noelraj Vs The Returning Officer/

A.Jaivel Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu