Dismissed

R.Balasundaram v. The Commissioner

Madras HC19 Dec 2017WP/31960/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a request to recognize the petitioner as a tenant of a temple property. The bench held that since the petitioner lost the eviction suit in civil court, he cannot claim bona fide occupation despite G.O.MS.No.340. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the rejection of the request to treat the petitioner as a tenant is dismissed, with no costs awarded.

R.Balasundaram Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.31960 of 2017
and
WMP No.35109 of 2017

¶6

1.R.Balasundaram [ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1. The Commissioner,
HR&CE Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE Department,
Dr.Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore.
3. The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Lakshmi Narayana
Venugopalasamy Temple,
Coimbatore. [RESPONDENTS]
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorari to call for the records relating to impugned letter
of rejection dated 24.10.2017 vide ref No.Na.Ka.11055/2017
passed by the second respondent and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : M/s.B.Sumithra
For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja
Special Government Pleader

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶10

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

¶11

2.This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 24.10.2017, rejecting the petitioner's request to treat him as tenant under the third respondent temple in respect of the subject matter property.

¶12

3.It is seen that between the petitioner and third respondent temple, a suit filed in O.S.No.793 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, ended in favour of the temple and confirmed in A.S.No.265 of 1999 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore. Consequently, E.P.No.94 of 2002 filed against the petitioner for evicting him from the subject matter premises is pending. It is also seen that the petitioner has made further attempt to treat him as tenant by making a representation and even such request was subsequently rejected by the Authorities concerned. It is further seen that the petitioner is dragging on the proceedings from the year 1992 onwards successfully thereby, retaining the possession of the subject matter premises all along. Therefore, the temple has rejected the request of the petitioner by passing the impugned order.

¶13

4.M/s.B.Sumithra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order passed by the second respondent is not in consonance with G.O.MS.No.340 dated 06.08.2007, which deals with the persons, who are in possession and enjoyment of the temple properties for long number of years. Therefore, she contended that the second respondent should have treated the petitioner as tenant and permitted him to continue in occupation. I do not think that such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted, more particularly, when he lost before the Civil Court in the suit filed against him by the temple for eviction. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot seek by relying upon the said G.O., which is, at the best, can be considered only in respect of the persons in occupation with bonafide. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶14

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶15

vri

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

The Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶19

The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department,

¶20

Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore.

¶21

The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Lakshmi Narayana Venugopalasamy Temple, Coimbatore. +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.90911 W.P.No.31960 of 2017

¶22

SJ(CO) CS/05/01/18

¶23

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

R.Balasundaram v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Balasundaram 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

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

R.Elangovan Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Manoharan, Vs The Deputy Registrar of

Sundaramurthy Vs The Collector

Sri Nagendra Babu, Vs The Sub collector

Lavanya Vs The District Collector