Disposed

V.Narasimhan, Hereditary v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Aug 2016WP/20589/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a hereditary trustee, filed a writ petition seeking a mandatory direction to Revenue Officers to stop illegal construction by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (9th respondent) on temple property. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Head of the department directly instead.

What did the court decide?

Injunction sought dismissed; Petitioner directed to approach the Ninth Respondent (Commissioner HR&CE) for appropriate action.

V.Narasimhan, Hereditary Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

W.P.No.20589 of 2016

¶7

V.Narasimhan Hereditary Trustee of the Arulmighu Amachar – Potharaja Temple S/o (late) Venkatarama Naidu 114, Potharaja Koil Street Thiruvannamalai Town and District .. Petitioner -vs-

¶8

1. The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District 2. The District Revenue Officer Thiruvannamalai District 3. The Thasildar Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District 4. The Revenue Divisional officer Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District 5. The Block Development Officer Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District 6. Assistant Director of Panchayat Office of the Collectorate Thiruvannamalai District 7. The Commissioner Thiruvannamalai Municipality Thiruvannamalai 8. Sathya Moorthy S/o Sampath 9. The Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034

¶9

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

¶10

10.The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Villupuram

¶11

11.The Assistant Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Thiruvannamalai Town and Taluk .. Respondents

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 3.5.2016 and consequently directing the seventh respondent to initiate necessary action to stop the further construction work to be done by the eighth respondent in the part of the temple property comprised in S.No.346, Patta No.1446, Block No.10, Ward No.4 situated at Thiruvannamalai Town and District.

¶13

For Petitioner :: Mr.B.Ramakrishnan For Respondents:: Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 & R6 Mr.M.Dig Vijayapandian for R5 Mr.A.S.Thambuswamy for R7 Mr.M.Maharaja Special Government Pleader for R9 to R11

¶14

ORDER (Order of the Court was delivered by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.)

¶15

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 3.5.2016 and consequently directing the seventh respondent to initiate necessary action to stop the further construction work to be done by the eighth respondent in the part of the temple property comprised in S.No.346, Patta No.1446, Block No.10, Ward No.4 situated at Thiruvannamalai Town and District.

¶16

The petitioner claims to be hereditary trustee of the excepted temple known as Ammachar-Potharaja temple situated at Tiruvannamalai District and also looking after its day to day affairs in the capacity of one of the successor-in-male heir of the erstwhile hereditary trustee of the said temple. It appears that the Inam land granted to the temple poojaries by the then British Government was sought to be sold on the basis of an order obtained from the learned Principal District Judge,

¶17

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

¶18

Tiruvannamalai in Trust O.P.No.1 of 2003 on 30.7.2003 and when the said order was challenged by the sister and mother of the petitioner as well by the respondents 9 to 11 before this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3067 of 2007 and 1840 of 2008, this Court, by order dated 15.12.2011, while setting aside the order of sale, remanded the matter back to the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai to dispose of the O.P.No.1 of 2003 after impleading all the rival parties with a further direction that till such time the main petition was decided on merits, there shall be no further alienation, construction or sale or otherwise. The grievance of the petitioner is that the eighth respondent is putting up construction in the property in question without any authority. In this regard, he has also submitted a representation to the respondents 1 to 6 seeking to initiate action to stop the construction work being carried out by the eighth respondent in the subject property and since it has evoked no response, he is before this Court.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is for the petitioner to approach the ninth respondent to get the things clarified and if there is any illegal construction put up by the eighth respondent as alleged by the petitioner, it is for the ninth respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, W.M.P.No.17696 of 2016 is closed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ss
To
1. The District Collector
Thiruvannamalai District
2. The District Revenue Officer
Thiruvannamalai District
3. The Thasildar
Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District
4. The Revenue Divisional officer
Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District

¶21

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

¶22

The Block Development Officer Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District

¶23

The Assistant Director of Panchayat Office of the Collectorate Thiruvannamalai District

¶24

The Commissioner
Thiruvannamalai Municipality
Thiruvannamalai
8. The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034
9. The Joint Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department
Villupuram
10.The Assistant Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department
Thiruvannamalai Town and Taluk
1 cc to M/s.A.S.Thambuswamy, Advocate, sr.45635
1 cc to M/s.Digvijayapandian, Advocate, sr.44971
1 cc to The Government Pleader, sr.45059
W.P.No.20589 of 2016
vd co
kra 31.08.2016

¶25

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

V.Narasimhan, Hereditary v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Narasimhan, Hereditary v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs S.Krishnan

K.Settu Vs The District Collector

M.PoornaSundari Vs The District Collector

D.Premakumari, Vs The District Collector

The Chennai Port Trust, Vs M/S. Express Clearing Agency

M/S.Mrf Ltd., Vs the Presiding Officer