Allowed

Sundaramurthy v. The Collector

Madras HC19 Dec 2017WP/2678/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes an impugned decision by the Divisional Arbitrator/Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the management of a private Temple. The Court set aside the order without expressing a view on the merits, directing parties to approach the competent civil court to decide the dispute on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside with a direction to file a civil suit for determination of management rights before the competent civil.

Sundaramurthy Vs The Collector — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 19.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.2678 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.2631 of 2017

¶6

1.Sundaramoorthy
2.Kumaravel
3.Selvarasu
4.Pazhanivel .. Petitioners
Vs
1.The Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
2.The Divisional Arbitrator/
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cuddalore.
3.The Tahsildar,
Panruti Taluk,
Panruti, Cuddalore District.
4.The Revenue Inspector,
Marungur,
Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.
5.The Village Administrative Officer,
Perperiankuppam,
Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
7.Arumugham
8.Samikkannu
9.Ramalingam
10.Rajadurai
11.Rajavelu
12.Pazhanivel
13.Selvarasu
14.Rajamanickam
15.Marimuthu
16.Kumaravel
17.Rajendran

¶7

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

¶8

18.Ramachandran 19.Thangasami 20.Pazhani 21.Sigamani

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.A2/3357/2016 dated 11.11.2016.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Selvaraju
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kumar,
Spl.Govt. Pleader for R1 to R6
: Mr.A.Jenasenan
for R7 to R11, R13 to R15 & R17 to R21
R.12 -No appearance
R.16 -Not ready
O R D E R

¶12

The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the second respondent dated 11.11.2016, wherein and whereby, the second respondent has decided the dispute over the right of management of private Temple, namely, Arumighu Subramaniaswami Temple of Perperiankuppam, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, between the petitioners on one hand and the private respondents No.7 to 21 on the other hand.

¶13

2.Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr.A.Jenasenan, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

¶14

3.It is not in dispute that the subject matter Temple is not falling under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. Admittedly, it is a private Temple situated in a village. It appears that there is a dispute between the parties, namely, the petitioners on one side and the respondents No.7 to 21 on the other side in respect of the management of the Temple. The second respondent, based on a complaint dated 08.09.2016 given by one Pazhani and others, proceeded to decide the right of management between the parties and passed the present impugned order.

¶15

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

¶16

4.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to decide such right, as the same can be relegated only to the competent civil Court.

¶17

5.Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents also submitted that the issue can be agitated before the competent civil Court by filing appropriate civil suit by either of the parties.

¶18

6.Perusal of the impugned order would show that the second respondent, who has absolutely no jurisdiction to enquire into and decide the dispute with regard to the management of a private Temple, has given certain findings as to who is entitled to manage the said Temple. In my considered view, the findings rendered by the second respondent cannot be sustained purely on the question of jurisdiction. As it is admitted by both parties that they will go and agitate their respective right before the competent civil Court, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms :

¶19

(a)The impugned order is set aside without expressing any view on the merits of the management right as claimed by both parties. (b)The parties are at liberty to file appropriate civil suit before the competent civil Court for establishing the right of management of the said Temple. (c)If any such suit is filed, the civil Court shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

(d)It is clarified that allowing this writ petition and setting aside the impugned order, shall not be construed as if this Court has expressed any view in respect of the management of the Temple in favour of the petitioners or the respondents as this Court has directed both the parties to approach the competent Court to decide the matter.

¶21

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶23

//True copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

gya

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1.The Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶29

2.The Divisional Arbitrator/Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore.

¶30

3.The Tahsildar, Panruti Taluk, Panruti, Cuddalore District.

¶31

4.The Revenue Inspector, Marungur, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶32

5.The Village Administrative Officer, Perperiankuppam, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶33

6.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶34

+2cc to Mr.S.Selvaraju, Advocate SR.No.90693 +1cc to Mr.A.Jenasenan, Advocate SR.No.90903 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.91145

¶35

Writ Petition No.2678 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.2631 of 2017

¶36

SSI(CO) GN(22/12/2017)

¶37

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

Sundaramurthy v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaramurthy v. The Collector

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

M/s.Parameshwary Modern Rice Vs The Government of Puducherry

R.Elangovan Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Manoharan, Vs The Deputy Registrar of

Sri Nagendra Babu, Vs The Sub collector

Lavanya Vs The District Collector

R.Balasundaram Vs The Commissioner