Dismissed

T.D. Rukku Reddiar (Deceased) v. the Commissioner

Madras HC30 Jan 2018WA/2206/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal challenged the dismissal of a petition seeking eviction of alleged encroachers from temple property. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that while the Authority could act independently, it is not competent to act at the appellant's instance when a dispute regarding possession exists.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; dismissal of writ petition upheld.

T.D. Rukku Reddiar (Deceased) Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 30.01.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN

¶6

Writ Appeal No.2206 of 2013
and
CMP No12119 of 2016
T.D. Rukku Reddiar (deceased)
1. R. Moorthy
2. R. Elumalai
(Substituted as per the
Order of this court dtd
30.01.2018 in CMP No.
12119 of 2016) .... Appellants
vs
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Dept.,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 34
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department,
Vellore – 9
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department,
Tiruvallur District – 602 001

¶7

N.S. Muthukumaran @ N.S. Elangovan

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

Munivel.S 6. G. Mohan

¶11

B. Kumar

¶12

M. Mani

¶13

R. Muthu 10.Gurumoorthy

¶14

.... Respondents

¶15

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against

¶16

the order passed in W.P.No.3424 of 2012 dated 21.11.2012.

¶17

For Appellant : Ms.G. Sumitra
For R.1 to R.3: Mr.M. Maharaja
Spl.G.P (H.R& C.E)
For R.4 to R.10: Mr.S. Ayyadurai
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.,)

¶18

The writ petition, filed by the deceased appellant for a

¶19

direction to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department to take action against the respondents 4 to 10 and remove the encroachment in respect of the temple property, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that there

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

is a dispute with regard to the nature of possession and the right claimed by the parties. The said Order is under challenge in this appeal.

¶23

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶24

We have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 10.

¶25

grievance that the property owned by the Arulmighu Ekavalliamman Temple, Gummidipoondi is in the possession of the respondents 4 to 10. According to the deceased appellant, the respondents 4 to 10

¶26

are in unauthorised occupation of the property and as such, the encroachers should be evicted.

¶27

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that there is a bonafide dispute with regard to the right claimed by the respondents 4 to 10.

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

¶30

There is no question of directing the Hindu

¶31

Religious & Charitable Endowment Department to take action against the respondents 4 to 10 at the instance of the appellant. In case, it is a temple property, it is always open to the concerned

¶32

authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶33

Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. However, we make it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not stand in the way of taking appropriate action by the authorities in case,

¶34

the temple property is in the possession of encroachers.

¶35

The intracourt appeal is disposed of with the above observation. No costs.

¶36

(K.K.SASIDHARAN.J.,) (P.VELMURUGAN.J.,) 30 January, 2018

¶37

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index:yes/no website:yes/no sr

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

¶40

¶41

The Commissioner,

¶42

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Dept., Nungambakkam High Road,

¶43

Chennai – 34

¶44

The Joint Commissioner,

¶45

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Vellore – 9

¶46

The Assistant Commissioner,

¶47

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department,

¶48

Tiruvallur District – 602 001

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶50

¶51

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J and P. VELMURUGAN,J

¶52

sr
Writ Appeal No.2206/2013
30-01-2018

¶53

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.D. Rukku Reddiar (Deceased) v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.D. Rukku Reddiar (Deceased) v. the Commissioner

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

E.Sekar Vs the Secretary

G. Mathew Vs the District Collector

N. Baskaran Vs the Managing Director

R. Deivasigamani Vs the Management of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Sri Vari Alloys India (P) Vs The Chairman and Managing

Lanco Infratech Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)