The petitioner sought writ relief directing the Joint Commissioner to dispose of a pending revision petition (R.P.No.5 of 2005) concerning temple honours within a specific time frame due to its long pendency.
The First Respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the review petition in R.P.No.5 of 2005 within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.03.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.(MD) No.3909 of 2017
Poomari ... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing to dispose of the proceeding RP.No.5 of 2005 pending on the file of the 1st respondent herein within a time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sivasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagudevan Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 and R2
O R D E R
The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the proceeding in R.P.No.5 of 2005 pending on his file.
2.According to the petitioner, her husband's grandfather one Nagarajan was born through one Kochadai Servai of Cholapuram Village. The said Kochadai Servai was the village head man and Ambalakaran of Cholapuram Village and in such capacity he was receiving all honours in the festival and at the time of performance of folk dances in Arulmighu Arul Mozhinathasamy Temple at Cholapuram Village, Sivagangai Taluk and District. After the demise of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said Kochadai Servai, the petitioner's husband's grandfather, namely, Nagarajan and his brother Ponnusamy were receiving the
2
honours of the temple.
3.In pursuance of the partition deed dated 25.04.1953, “B” schedule property and rights were given to the petitioner's husband grandfather, Nagarajan. Ever since Ponnusamy was acting as the Headman and Nagarajan in his capacity as Ambalakar was receiving all the honours and perquisites in all the festival and folk dance programme conducted in the temple. The said Nagarajan died on 25.11.2004 and thereafter, the petitioner's husband's grandmother one Nagammal was recognised and she received all honours in such capacity. Aggrieved by the appointment of the said Nagammal, one P.Muthiah Servai, the third respondent herein filed a revision petition in R.P.No.5 of 2005 under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act before the first respondent herein. The first respondent, after hearing all the parties, on 18.09.2009 passed an order dismissing the Revision Petition but simultaneously setting aside the order of the Devasthanam in favour of the third respondent herein and further directing the parties to resolve their dispute in a civil Court. Aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, the petitioner's husband's grandmother, namely, Nagammal, preferred further revision petition in R.P.No.77 of 2010 before the Commissioner of H.R and C.E., Chennai under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The Commissioner of H.R & C.E., Chennai, passed an order on 13.03.2012 setting aside the order passed by the first respondent in R.P.No.5 of 2005 dated 18.09.2009 and remanded the matter back to the first respondent for fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner's husband's grandmother Nagammal, died on 13.11.2010 and the petitioner's husband's father predeceased her on 15.10.2004. Therefore, the petitioner's husband and two sisters were impleaded as petitioners in R.P.No.77/2010 pending before the Commissioner of H.R & C.E., Chennai. However, during the pendency of that revision, the petitioner's husband also died on 04.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a memo dated 08.06.2016 through her Advocate to implead her minor daughters. Thereafter, notice was ordered by the first respondent on 01.08.2016 and thereafter, nothing has happened.
4.From the above narrated facts, it could be seen that the remand order was passed by the Commissioner of H.R & C.E., on 13.03.2012 and the matter has been kept pending before the first respondent for almost 5 years. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come before this Court with the relief as stated supra.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the proceedings in R.P.No.5 of 2005 is disposed of by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.
3
8.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(RTI)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
SKN
TE/SKN : 17/03/2017 : 3P/5C
W.P.(MD) No.3909 of 2017 08.03.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent should be directed to dispose of the pending revision petition within a reasonable time frame.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Poomari
The Joint Commisssioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department
The Sivagangai Devasthanam
P.Muthaiah Servai
V. Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
