Third Respondent. In this regard, he submits that a sum of Rs.29,640/- per annum is due for 19 years from 01.07.1999 to 30.06.2018 which works out to a sum of Rs.5,63,160/- and after adjusting the payments made by the Petitioner on 19.12.2009, 28.05.2017, 31.03.2018 and 04.04.2019 aggregating to a sum of Rs. 2,31,192/-, there is still a balance of Rs.3,31,968/- that remains outstanding to be paid by the Petitioner. It is further explained by him that the sum of Rs.1,92,487/demanded from the Petitioner by notice dated 26.09.2018 was not in terms of the order passed by the Second Respondent, but that amount had been computed in pursuance of the orders dated 12.08.2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 14428 of 2017 and W.P. (MD) No. 16833 of 2017 passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court, which cannot be treated as full satisfaction of the condition imposed by the Second Respondent. In this backdrop, it is contended that the order passed by the First Respondent does not call for any interference and the Fourth Respondent may proceed to take further action to recover possession of the agricultural lands from the Petitioner in accordance with law. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid rival contentions, it requires to be pointed out that though the Second Respondent has stated that a sum of Rs.5,000/- per acre per fasli would have to be paid from the date on which possession was due to the Fourth Respondent, neither the Petitioner nor the Fourth Respondent are in a position to produce materials before this Court today showing the exact date from which the possession is due by the Petitioner to the Fourth Respondent. This is a substantial question which would fall for determination under Section 78(5) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, in the proceedings before the Third Respondent and it would not be appropriate to delve upon that aspect of the matter at this stage by this Court.
