Disposed

Elayappan v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC26 Feb 2020WP/4558/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding a dispute over possession of temple shops. With directed payment of arrears and pending revision petitions, the High Court stayed coercive action against the petitioners and closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Ordered disposal of pending revision petitions by 31.03.2020; stayed coercive action until then; closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

Elayappan Vs The Secretary to Government — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 26.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.Nos.4558 & 4562 of 2020

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.5403 and 5406 of 2020

¶8

Elayappan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4558 of 2020
Jagir .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4562 of 2020
..Vs..
1. The Secretary to Government,
Tamil Culture Development & Religious Endowment Dept.,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Salem – 636 001.

¶9

Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dharmapuri – 636 701.

¶10

Fit Person/Executive Officer, A/M. Karaga Samundiamman Temple, Krishnagiri – 635 001. .. Respondents in both W.Ps

¶11

Common Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their men, agents and servants or anybody claiming through them or under them in any manner, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

¶12

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

¶13

petitioners shops along with the superstructure having an extent of 331 Sq.ft., 315 Sq.ft., and in T.S.No.11/7, Ward – C, Block – 14, situated at Chennai Salai, Krishnagiri Town and Taluk.

¶14

For Petitioners

¶15

in both W.Ps : Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.M.Karthikeyan in both W.Ps Special Government Pleader

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

The petitioners claimed that they have been in possession by running shops in the land belonging to the 5^th respondent namely A/m.Karaga Samundiamman Temple at Krishnagiri. There have been continuous proceedings between the petitioners and the respondents. Finally, the 2^nd respondent namely the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, appears to have passed an order adverse to the petitioners.

¶19

As against the said order, the petitioners have filed Revision petitions before the 2^nd respondent namely the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revision Petitions are still pending.

¶20

However, even before filing the Revision Petitions, questioning the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, the Writ petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions. In the Writ Petitions, orders to the satisfaction of the petitioners were not passed. Thereafter, they have filed Writ Appeals. In the writ appeals, they were directed to deposit 50% of the arrears of rent and thereafter file a Revision Petition. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners have deposited 50 % of the arrears.

¶21

The learned Special Government Pleader is also present before this Court. On instructions, he stated that very recently, just before the filing of the Writ Petitions, the petitioners have deposited 50% of the rental arrears.

¶22

It is made clear that the petitioners must continue to pay the amount as claimed by the respondents.

¶23

The 1^st respondent is directed to dispose of the Revision Petitions which are pending on or before 31.03.2020. If the rents are being paid without default, no coercive action can be

¶24

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

¶25

initiated against the petitioner, till the disposal of the Revision Petitions.

¶26

With the above direction, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

vum

¶31

To 1. The Secretary to Government, Tamil Culture Development & Religious Endowment Dept., Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Salem – 636 001. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dharmapuri – 636 701. 5. Fit Person/Executive Officer, A/M. Karaga Samundiamman Temple, Krishnagiri – 635 001.

¶32

+2cc to Mr.W.M.Abdulmajeed, Advocate, S.R.No. 16921, 16920 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader, S.R.No. 17934

¶33

W.P.Nos.4558 and 4562 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.5403 and 5406 of 2020

¶34

SVI(CO) GN(09/03/2020)

¶35

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

Elayappan v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elayappan v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aravindan Vs Union of India

Aravindan Vs Union of India

N.Gangadharan,Korkadu and Post,Pondicherry, Vs S.Palanivelu

P.Veeramani Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Mrs.Ramya Vs The Assistant commissioner of Police

New Tulip Ayurvedic Spa Vs The Commissioner of Police