Disposed

The Executive Officer, v. the Karaikudi Municipality

Madras HC26 Sept 2018WP(MD)/20249/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an auction notice for land adjacent to a temple. The court noted the land is Government Poramboke but observed the respondent plans to hand over the constructed auditorium to the petitioner. The petition was disposed of pending the receipt of such an affidavit from the respondent.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; provision for respondent to file affidavit to dispose of matter.

The Executive Officer, Vs the Karaikudi Municipality — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 26.09.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.20249 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) No.18015 of 2018

¶7

The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Koppudayamman Thirukoil, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Karaikudi Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from their man, agents, servants or any one claiming under respondent encroaching the lands in Old Survey No.171, (T.S.No.71/1), situated at Karaikudi Town more particularly lands lying in between the Kallukatti Oorani and the petitioner temple.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for M/s.AL.Kannan For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mahendran

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, their man, agents, servants or any one claiming under the respondent from encroaching the lands in Old Survey No.171, (T.S.No.71/1), situated at Karaikudi Town more particularly lands lying in between the Kallukatti Oorani and the petitioner temple.

¶16

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

¶17

2.After hearing the parties, we have passed an order on 20.09.2018 which is given as under:

¶18

¶19

“Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land having an extent of 50 to 60 feet lying in between Arulmighu Koppudayamman Temple at Karaikudi and temple Oorani has been in full occupation and enjoyment by the temple for more than 300 years and the festivals of Arulmighu Koppudayamman Thirukovil are also being celebrated, holding functions in the same place. When large number of devotees visit the temple during the festival season, they use the present place in dispute. While so, the Karaikudi Municipality, who is not having any ownership or title over the property, has allowed to occupy the place for construction of a Public Auditorium. The temple Authorities and the devotees who used to visit the temple more particularly, during the festival season, would be put to great hardship and they do not have any place to keep their pooja articles and other things. Therefore, the auction notice issued by the respondent would be interfered with.

¶20

In reply, Mr.P.Mahendran, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the public auditorium is going to be constructed in the present place only for the interest and welfare of the devotees of Arulmighu Koppudayamman Temple. He further submitted that as pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner, the devotees are assembling in front of the temple during the festival season are the ultimate beneficiaries, since the respondent also after completing the construction going to hand over the same. Therefore, there cannot be any objection for receiving the complete pakka constructed auditorium at the expense of the respondent.

¶21

Immediately, the learned Special Government Pleader, reducing his force, has stated that let there be an affidavit to that effect.

¶22

Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶23

The land is also classified as Government Poramboke as per the Revenue Records. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any claim. Be that as it may, when the respondent is going to put up open space auditorium for the benefit of the common people and also for the devotees who visit the temple and they are also going to hand over the physical possession of the auditorium after construction of the same to the temple authorities / the petitioner herein, let there be an affidavit by the respondent to that effect.

¶24

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

¶25

Post the matter on 25.09.2018.”

¶26

¶27

3.Today when the matter is taken up, the respondent filed a reply affidavit, as directed by us. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit is relevant and is extracted hereunder:

¶28

“10.It is further humbly submitted that after completing the said Nataka Medai with paver-block road, the same will be handed over to the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Koppudayamman Thirukoil, and the Executive Officer would be entirely responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the same in accordance with law and as per procedures laid down in this regard. Even the Electricity Service Connection for the said Nataka Medai is also being obtained in the name of the Executive Officer, Arulmighu Koppudayamman Thirukoil, Karaikudi.”

¶29

4.In the light of the above, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶31

/True Copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶33

¶34

The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶35

1 CC TO Mr.P.MAHENDRAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 87201

¶36

SRM

¶37

TE/SKN/SAR-4 : 13/11/2018 : 3P/3C

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.20249 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) No.18015 of 2018 26.09.2018

¶39

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

The Executive Officer, v. the Karaikudi Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Officer, v. the Karaikudi Municipality

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

Bakkar, Vs the Tahsildar

C.Dhanabal Vs the Central Registrar of

M.George Vs the District Collector

V.Ragul Kannan, Vs the Principal District Judge

V.Muthuprasad, Vs the Director, Institute of

Thoothukudi Mavatta Makkal Vs the District Collector