Allowed

R. Karmegam v. the Commissioner

Madras HC9 Nov 2016WP(MD)/1436/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that there is no material to prove the existence of the temple or the petitioner's title. The impugned order appointing a Fit Person was set aside as it pertained to a non-existent temple. The Court clarified that encroachment on highfly land is for authorities to remove.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order appointing a Fit Person is set aside. The Court reserved the right to act on encroachment matters separately.

R. Karmegam Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.11.2016

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P(MD)No.1436 of 2014

¶5

R.KARMEGAM, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NO.14 VOC STREET, ARUL NAGAR, BYE PASS ROAD, MADURAI-14. ..Petitioner Vs. 1 THE COMMISSIONER, HR &CE UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI, CHENNAI.

¶6

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HR &CE ENDOWMENT BOARD, K.K.NAGAR MADURAI.

¶7

3 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARULMIGU MATHANA GOPALASAMY TEMPLE, MADURAI TOWN AND CIRCLE MADURAI.

¶8

R.Nallamani 5. R.Ammalu Ammal 6. R.Kanimozhi 7. R.Mahalakshmi ..Respondents (R4 to R7 have been impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.NO.2 of 2014 vide order dated 09.11.2016)

¶9

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Mandamus calling the impugned order dated 2.1.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner in (Se.Mu.Ka.Na.4531/2013/A1 dated 2.1.2014) and quash the same and forbearing the respondents from interfereing the petitioners temple (Arulmigu Karuppan Samy Temple Madakulam Bye-Pas Road Madurai South).

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vinayagamoorthy For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan for R1 & R2 Spl. Government Pleader Mr.S.Manohar for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.R.Ramasamy for R4 to R7

¶11

¶12

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.)

¶13

The petitioner challenges in this writ petition the order of the 2^nd respondent in Se.Mu.Ka.Na.4531/2013/A1, dated 02.01.2014, wherein the 2^nd respondent has appointed a Fit Person as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Temple in question is a private temple, which is under his administration, over which, the 2^nd respondent has got no jurisdiction.

¶14

The respondents 4 to 7, who were impleaded now, would state that there is no such Temple and the petitioner is only an encroacher. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that they have got no objection for removal of the encroachment. He would further submit that the petitioner had forged a Will, as though it was executed by his grandfather Mr.Rakkappa Konar, for which also, FIR has been registered against him. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 would further submit that as many as eight FIRs have been registered against the petitioner for the offences committed by him.

¶15

The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that earlier the petitioner had encroached upon the property in question claiming falsely that there was a Temple and the said encroachment was also removed. Since he has subsequently made encroachment, the Highways Department has issued notice for removal of the said encroachment.

¶16

We have considered the above submissions.

¶17

As of now, there is no material to show that there is a Temple. There is also no document to show that the petitioner has got any right or title over the land in question. The fact that he is involved in eight criminal cases would also speak volumes about the hollowness of the claim that all are made by the petitioner. The issue has been complicated by the 2^nd respondent by appointing a Fit Person for a non existing Temple. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. At the same time, we need to clarify that if there is any encroachment on the Highways land, it is for the authorities to take appropriate steps to remove the said encroachment without any further delay.

¶18

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, however, we make it very clear that we have not accepted the case of the petitioner that there is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Temple and that the same is under his administration. We further clarify that if the petitioner has made any encroachment on the Highways land, it is for the authorities to remove the said

¶19

¶20

encroachment without any further loss of time. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1 THE COMMISSIONER, HR &CE UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI, CHENNAI. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HR &CE ENDOWMENT BOARD, K.K.NAGAR MADURAI. 3 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARULMIGU MATHANA GOPALASAMY TEMPLE, MADURAI TOWN AND CIRCLE MADURAI. +1cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate in SR.67272 +1cc to Mr.V.Vinayagamurthy, Advocate in SR.67201 +1cc to Mr.T.Antony Arulraj, Advocate in SR.67227

¶21

W.P(MD)No.1436 of 2014 09.11.2016 rr.

¶22

PBK/MPA/SAR-I 16.11.2016 ::3p-7c:

¶23

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

R. Karmegam v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Karmegam v. the Commissioner

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

Anaithidiya Samuthaya Makkal Vs Union of India

Arunmozhi Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Lakshmi Vs the Commissioner of Police

Lazer @ Rajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Maganlal Mehta and Co, Vs the Assistant Divisional

Thirumalai Advertising Vs the Divisional Engineer