Dismissed

Govindasamy v. The Commissioner

Madras HC9 Oct 2020WP/1097/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior Single Judge dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of tenancy claims by numerous residents in a temple property. The Court held that due to prior judgments vesting title in the Temple and declaring occupants as encroachers, the petitioners had no independent right to tenancy.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; order of joint commissioner rejecting tenancy prayer upheld; execution proceedings directed to conclude expeditiously.

Govindasamy Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

WP.No.1097 of 2020
& WMP.Nos.1302&1303 of 2020
1.Govindasamy
2.Veeramani
3.Ramadoss
4.Rajalakshmi
5.Panneer Selvam
6.Ellammal
7.Subramani
8.Loganathan
9.Indrani
10.Mahendiran
11.Duraisamy
12.Samanthi
13.Muniyammal
14.Navammal
15.Manjula
16.Muniyammal ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Villupuram Division,
Villupuram.

¶6

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. 4.The Inspector/Fit Person, Arulmigu Pachiswarar Temple, Parthipuram, Cheyyar Town & Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶7

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

¶8

5.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶9

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar Revenue Division, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶10

7.The Tahsildhar, Cheyyar Taluk, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.7141/2018/Aa2 dated 08.02.2019 and quash the same, consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to consider the Tenancy of the petitioners for their residential houses situated in Survey No.25 of Parthipuram Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, based on their Application dated 14.08.2018 .

¶13

For Petitioners: Mr.Jothimaniyan For K.Balu

¶14

For Respondents: Mr.M.Karthikeyan,

¶15

Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Ms.P.Rjalakshmifor R5 to R7.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth the claim of the petitioner as landless poor residing in house plot at S.No.25 of Parithipuram Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District (property/premises in question). They claim to have resided in the property for more than 25 years and also state that they have been remitting house tax, electricity charges for the connections provided and land tax on the basis of B memos that have been issued. They also hold ration and voter ID cards to evidence their residence in the premises in question. The property was originally classified as Government Poramboke as per ‘A’ Register and has thereafter, vide judgment dated 16.02.1971 in A.S.No.49 of 1965 been held to belong to the fourth respondent, i.e., Fit Person, ArulmiguPachiswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai District (Temple).

¶17

A dispute arose in the year 1961 in regard to the title to the property and the trustees of the Temple approached the District Munsif Court in O.S.No.267 of 1961 seeking a declaration that the Temple held the title to the property in question. The Suit came to

¶18

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

¶19

be dismissed on 29.11.1963 as against which, Appeal Suit in A.S.No.49 of 1965 was filed by the Trustees that came to be allowed on 16.02.1971. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai/R5 filed a Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.No.1874 of 1972 and the same came to be dismissed on 28.04.1982.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the Temple points out that some of the defendants arrayed in the Suit proceedings O.S.No.67 of 1961 are related to the present petitioners, for instance, Gopal Gounder arrayed as D12 is the husband of the 4^th petitioner before me, Allimuthu Gounder, arrayed as D15 is the grandfather of the 3^rd petitioner and Govinda Gounder, arrayed as D22 is the father of the 2^nd petitioner.

¶21

While the Suit proceedings were on-going, all the petitioners in this Writ Petition including Saravanan, husband of Manjula, 15^th petitioner and Chandran, husband of Muniyammal, 16^th petitioner before me, along with two others Shankar and Lakshmi, who are not petitioners here, filed I.A.No.13/2016 in E.P.No. 66/1980 in terms of Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 as third parties, seeking to obstruct the on-going Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.66 of 1980 in O.S.No.267 of 1961 before the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.

¶22

The Principal District Munsif rejected the application on 26.10.2016 as follows:

¶23

*kDjhuhh;fs; kDr;brhj;J Fwpj;J kDtpy; Fwpg;gplhjjhYk; epiwntw;WkDvz;/66-1980?y; g[y vz;/25?y; cs;s 3/12 Vf;fh; ,lk; kDjhuh;fSf;F brhe;jkhdJ vd;gjw;F ve;jbthU Mtzj;ija[k; Kd;dpiyg;gLj;jg;glhj epiyapYk; Vw;fdnt TwpaJ nghy; ,t;tHf;F Fwpj;J muRjug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l 2tJ nky;KiwaPl;Lvz;/1877-1972 tHf;fhdJ khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;Ls;s epiyapy; mry; tHf;F 267-1961 tHf;fpy; ,e;ePjpkd;wk; 14/02/1971?y; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[k; jPh;g;ghiza[k; epiwntw;wnfhhp jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ epiwntw;W ePjpkd;wkhdJ jPh;g;g[f;F gpd; bry;y ,ayhJ/ kDjhuh;fs; kDtpy; nfhhp[a[s;s ghpfhuj;jpid Vw;Wf;bfhs;tjhf ,y;iy vd;Wk; mry; tHf;fhdJ 1961 tHf;F vd;gjhYk; epiwntw;W kDthdJ 1980?y; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhYk; epiwntw;W kDthdJ Rkhh; 30 tUl';fshf epYitapy; ,Ue;J tUfpd;w epiyapy; kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; chpiknfhUk; egh;fs; vd;gjw;fhf kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy;. FLk;g ml;il jtpu ntW ve;j xU Mtzj;ija[k; kDt[ld; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy/ nkYk; , njepiwntw;WkDtpy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;lcj;jutpd; nky; Vw;fdntTwpaJ nghy; rPuha;t[ kDf;fs; rp/Mh;/gp/be/282-1981 ehs; 20/04/1982 kw;Wk; rp/Mh;/gp/be/24621991 ehs; 09/03/1998 njjpfspy; khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkdwk; js;Sgo bra;Js;sJ/ nkny tpthjpj;j tpthj';fspy; ,Ue;JkDjhuh;fs; ,k;kDtpid mDkjpf;f nfhu nghJkhd fhuzk; vJt[k; kDtpy; ,y;iy/ vdnt ,

¶24

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

¶25

k;kDtpidmDkjpf;f vj;jifa Kfhe;jpuKk; ,y;iyvd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; Kot [ bra;fpwJ/

¶26

,Wjpahf ,k;kDjs;Sgobra;ag;gLfpwJ/ bryt[j; bjhif ,y;iy/ ,e;jcj;jut[ vk;brhy;ypw;fpz';f jl;lr;ruhy; nehpilahf jl;lr;R bra;ag;gl;L vd;dhy; gpiHj;jpUj;jk; bra;j gpd;dh; 2016?k; Mz;L mf;nlhgh; jp';fs; 26?k; ehshd ,d;W ,e;ePjpkd;w mitawpagfug;gl;lJ/ *

¶27

The Court noticed that in C.R.P.Nos.282 of 1981 and 2462 of 1991, this Court had, vide orders dated 20.04.1982 and 09.03.1998, conclusively held that the title to the property in question vests in the Temple and that all occupants in the property were encroachers. There is no dispute with regard to this factual position.

¶28

The same petitioners as before me now had filed W.P.No.22105 of 2018 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents and the Temple to consider the request for tenancy in the house in S.No.25 based on their application/representation dated 14.08.2018. The Writ Petition was disposed with the learned single Judge stating at paragraph 5 that ‘Incontrovertibly, the petitioners do not have any independent right over the property in question and they claim tenancy merely based on their possession for over a long number of years’. The respondent was however directed to dispose the representation that was rejected on 08.02.2019 reiterating the sequence of events that I have noticed above as against which the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶29

Perhaps it is on account of the above undisputed position that the petitioners claim only tenancy rights in the land citing their long and sustained stay. The present petition is only a prayer for mercy disguised as a writ petition, the petitioners praying that they be permitted to continue their encroachment in the premises in question.

¶30

In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I see no merit whatsoever in the challenge to order dated 08.02.2019. The Joint Commissioner has considered the request for tenancy and rejected the same and I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The property in question has been in illegal occupation by the present petitioners/their fore fathers as well as others for more than four decades and it is high time that the properties were restored to the Temple to be deployed in gainful use.

¶31

This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Consequently, the interim protection granted vide order dated 22.01.2020 stands vacated. Proceedings in Execution Petition will be concluded expeditiously and taken to their logical conclusion at the earliest.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner incidentally requests that the District Collector may consider housing the petitioners at an alternate site and also cites certain Welfare Schemes though no

¶33

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

¶34

specifics thereof are placed before me. The petitioners may approach the Government separately seeking alternate relief. I make it clear that the aforesaid observation will in no way stand in the way of the Temple authorities and the official respondents from pursuing the pending proceedings for Execution before the Principal District Munsif at Tiruvannamalai, and the same shall be concluded expeditiously and without further delay.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar

¶37

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

Sl To 1.The Principal District Munsif,Thiruvannamalai. 2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Villupuram Division, Villupuram. 4.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. 5.The Inspector/Fit Person, ArulmiguPachiswarar Temple, Parthipuram, Cheyyar Town & Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. 6.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai. 7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar Revenue Division, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶39

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

¶40

8.The Tahsildhar, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶41

+1cc to M/s.K.Balu , Advocate, sr no.33616

¶42

+1cc to The Government Pleader, sr no.33707

¶43

+1cc to The Special Government Pleader, sr 33967

¶44

WP.No.1097 of 2020&

¶45

WMP.Nos.1302 & 1303 of 2020

¶46

AJS(CO)
RMP(24/11/2020)

¶47

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

Govindasamy v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindasamy 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

M/s. Clean Switch India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Tax Officer

Msc Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Customs (Imports)

Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

P.Thananjayan Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Excise)

M/s.Qutbi Industrial Supplier Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Sahana Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer