Dismissed

Ayyappa Seva Sangam v. Union of India

Madras HC10 Apr 2018WP/9760/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a religious trust, challenged demolition of its temple on Air Force land under the Public Premises Act. Court held land belongs to Air Force, petitioners had no title. Upholding JD's order, Court dismissed writ, noting respondents undertook to maintain temple and permit worship, thus negating legitimate grievance of devotees.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Ayyappa Seva Sangam Vs Union of India — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.04.2018 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶4

W.P.No.9760 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2011

¶5

Ayyappa Seva Sangam, Rep by its Secretary Mr.P.Karunakaran Nair, Ayyappan Temple, Muthapudupettai I.A.F., Avadi, Chennai 600 055. ... Petitioner -Vs1.Union of India, Rep by Secretary, Minister of Defence, New Delhi. 2.The Air Officer, Commanding-in-chief, Head Quarters, Maintenance Common, Indian Air Force, Vayu Sena, Nagpur. 3.The Air Officer, Commanding Estate Officer, Air Force Station Avadi, Chennai-55. ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the 3^rd respondent relating to the impugned proceedings in No.23ED/1874/555/WKs dated 16.03.2006 and confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur District in PP CMA No.44 of 2006 dated 31.01.2011, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents, their men, servants and agents whoever claiming under them from demolishing the petitioner's Ayyappan Temple situated at Survey No.14/1B, Muthapudupet Village, IAF Avadi, Chennai-55.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Assistant Solicitor General

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Heard Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.

¶10

The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:-

¶11

“To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the 3^rd respondent relating to the impugned proceedings in No.23ED/1874/555/WKs dated 16.03.2006 and confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur District in PP CMA No.44 of 2006 dated 31.01.2011, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents, their men, servants and agents whoever claiming under them from demolishing the petitioner's Ayyappan Temple situated at Survey No.14/1B, Muthapudupet Village, IAF Avadi, Chennai-55.”

¶12

The case of the petitioner is as follows:According to the petitioner sangam, the Ayyappan Temple was established in 1969 in poramboke land belonging to the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu has handed over a huge extent of land including the land in which the temple was located, to Indian Air Force. According to the Sangam, the temple had been in existence for several years and thousands of devotees in and around Avadi come to participate for the periodical poojas and rituals performed in the temple. The devotees also hugely contributed to the development of the temple over a period of time. As years went by, the number of devotees had also considerably increased, as the temple started attracting more devotees. The temple was situated in the land measuring about 4021 Sq.ft.

¶13

According to the petitioner Sangam, the third respondent had been extending their cooperation in conducting the affairs of the temple, since many of the retired Air Force personnels had also became devotees of the temple. While so, the third respondent issued a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Act, 1971, dated 20.05.2005, stating that the petitioner Sangam had put up the temple in the land belonging to Indian Air Force and directed the Sangam to show cause why they should not be evicted from the land. A reply was given to the show cause notice by the petitioner Sangam on 06.06.2005. According to the petitioner Sangam, at particular point of time, the Air Force was willing to sell the land to the temple authorities at the sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the offer had not been come through for some reasons.

¶14

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

¶15

In view of the lack of response from the temple authorities to the notice issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Act, 1971, once again notice was issued on 08.02.2006 and every time when the notice was issued, the petitioner Sangam used to give reply stating that the matter would be amicably settled and the Sangam was willing to pay any sale consideration for the land in their possession. However, it appears that the offer of the petitioner Sangam remained as an excuse, as they were not actually willing to progress towards the settlement of the land in which the temple was located.

¶16

In the above circumstances, the Air Force was left with no other option except to pursue the matter under Public Premises Act and demolish the temple under Section 5(b) of the Act. Against the demolition notice, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act in PP CMA No.44 of 2006, before the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. After adverting to various materials and evidence placed on record, the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, had confirmed the order of demolition passed by the third respondent dated 16.03.2006 vide its order dated 31.01.2011.

¶17

In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.25785 of 2008, before this Court seeking issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to allot the subject land to the temple for the purpose of maintaining and worshiping the temple. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 28.04.2009, directing the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner. However, it appears according to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, no orders were passed in the writ petition. The present writ petition is filed challenging the demolition notice issued by the respondents as confirmed in PP CMA No.44 of 2006, by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur.

¶18

Upon notice, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents, entered appearance and filed a detailed counter affidavit.

¶19

The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India would submit that it is an admitted case that the temple was located in the land belonging to Indian Air Force and infact, number of suggestions were given to the temple authorities that the land to be handed over to the Air Force and the Air Force would maintain the temple in a proper manner and will permit the devotees of the temple to partake in the prayers and that the Air Force would not demolish the temple. At the same time, the stand of the Air Force was that the Private Sangam cannot be allowed to control the affairs of the temple in the land belonging to the respondents. On the other hand, it appears that

¶20

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

¶21

the petitioner Sangam was not willing to accept the offer made by the Air Force in this regard and they were not inclined to come forward to any kind of amicable settlement as suggested by the Indian Air Force. In fact, the matter was adjourned on few occasions to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties, but, the petitioner was not willing to accept any settlement and insisted the Court to pass orders on merits.

¶22

Therefore, this Court is constrained to pass orders in the writ petition on its merits. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, this Court has to see that admittedly the land belongs to the Indian Air Force. Therefore, the petitioner Sangam cannot claim any kind of right over the property. In any event, there was no valid explanation for the Sangam to continue its activities for holding its right over the temple. The learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, has given elaborate reasons and discountenanced every aspect of contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Sangam. In fact, the learned Principal District Judge has found that no materials whatsoever produced before the Court for establishing the fact that the temple was in existence from 1969. The learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, has held that there was absolutely no merit in the appeal and therefore, the same was dismissed by confirming the order of demolition passed by the third respondent.

¶23

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur in PP C.M.A.No.44 of 2006 dated 31.01.2011. Once, it is an admitted case that the land belongs to the respondents, it is not open to the petitioner Sangam to claim any right whatsoever over the property and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Sangam lacks merits and substance and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. At the time when the matter was taken up for hearing, according to the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents, an additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent herein, giving an undertaking to maintain the temple as averred as follows:-

¶24

“(a) Once the temple is handed over to the Administrator of Air Force Station, Avadi, Air Force will not demolish the Ayyappa Temple. Also, suitable priest will be engaged for performing day-to-day worship in the temple.

¶25

(b) Air Force will maintain the Ayyappa Temple in a proper and befitting manner.

¶26

(c ) Air Force will see to that the Poojas and other rituals are conducted strictly as per the procedures to be followed for an Ayyappa Temple. Also, suitable priest will be engaged for performing day-to-day worship in the temple.

¶27

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

¶28

(d) Air Force will permit the devotees for the purpose of prayers subject to procedural security checks and proper identification.”

¶29

In view of the clear undertaking given on behalf of the respondents, the right of the worshippers and the devotees of the Ayyappan temple is fully protected. Therefore, they cannot have any legitimate grievance for the respondents taking over the land belonging to them. In any event, the right of the Ayyappan devotees for continued worship of Lord Ayyappan is not going to be altered or curtailed, since the Air Force has given a clear undertaking to that effect. Therefore, this Court does not see any justification to permit the petitioner Sangam to control the affairs of the temple in the land, which is admittedly belong to the Indian Air Force, the respondents herein.

¶30

In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Deputy Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar gsk To 1.The Secretary, Union of India, Minister of Defence, New Delhi. 2.The Air Officer, Commanding-in-chief, Head Quarters, Maintenance Common, Indian Air Force, Vayu Sena, Nagpur. 3.The Air Officer, Commanding Estate Officer, Air Force Station Avadi, Chennai-55.

¶31

- 1 cc to Mr.N.Srinivasan Advocate,SR.26080 + 1 cc to Mr.G.Karthikeyan Advocate,SR.26232

¶32

W.P.No.9760 of 2011

¶33

nr 27/04/2018

¶34

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

Ayyappa Seva Sangam v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyappa Seva Sangam v. Union of India

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

K.Natarajan Vs The Managing Director

P.Jitendrapal Singh Vs General Manager

M.Kannan, Vs a. Rajendran

The Management of Vs the Presiding Officer

M. Senthikumar Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Selvaraj Vs the General Manager