Disposed

J.Mohanraj v. The District Collector

Madras HC26 Apr 2021WP/10238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners seek restoration of a holy tank to a temple and transfer of revenue records. The Court declines to examine merits and remands the matter to the District Collector for fresh, reasoned consideration on merits within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to the District Collector to reconsider the appeal and fresh representations on merits; reasoned order to be passed within 8 weeks after hearing all parties.

J.Mohanraj Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.Nos.10238 & 4936 of 2021

¶8

W.P.No.10238 of 2021
J.Mohanraj ..Petitioner in person
Vs.
1. District Collector
Collectorate of Chennai Singaravelar Maaligai
62, Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600 001.
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department
119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai
Chennai 600 034.
3. The Executive Officer
Sri Sundara Varadaraja Perumal Temple
Kaliamman Koil Street
Rajeshwari Nagar
Virugambakkam
Chennai 600 092.
4. The Thakkar
Sri Sundara Varadaraja Perumal Temple
Kaliamman Koil Street
Rajeshwari Nagar
Virugambakkam
Chennai 600 092. ..Respondents
W.P.No.4936 of 2021
Arulmigu Sri Sundara Varadaraja Perumal Temple
rep. by its Executive Officer
Kaliamman Koil Street
Virugambakkam
Chennai 600 092. ..Petitioner

¶9

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

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration Government of Tamil Nadu Ezhizhalgam Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶12

The District Collector Chennai District Singaravelar Maligai Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶13

Nawab Zada Kurshed Mohammed Khan 4. Nawab Zada Rafeeq Mohammed Khan 5. Maboosa Begum 6. Faizal Mohammed Khan 7. Bhagat Mohammed Khan 8. The Joint Commissioner HR and CE Department Chennai. ..Respondents

¶14

[R8 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 05.03.2021]

¶15

Prayer in W.P. No. 10238/2021 and W.P. No. 4936/2021: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

¶16

(i) Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to restore the Holy Tank Mettukulam in Virugambakkam Block 34 T.S.No.2 (Old survey No.222/3 part) and hand over the Holy Tank to the Virugambakkam Sri Sundaravaradharaja Perumal Temple; and

¶17

(ii) Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first and second respondents in connection with the order in No.K4/34740/2011 dated 24.12.2020 passed by the first respondent rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the orders of the second respondent passed in RC.No.J5/16297/2010 dated 24.03.2020 and quash the same and consequently, direct the first and second respondent to transfer the Registry of the Revenue Records in respect of the above land in Block No.34, T.S.No.2 (Old S.No.222/3pt) and T.S.No.148 (Old S.No.222/3pt., 223 pt) of Virugambakkam Village, Mambalam Taluk from that of Government Dry "Taluk Board" in Town Survey Land

¶18

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

¶19

Register to that of "Temple Land" belonging to Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple, Kaliamman Koil Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Mohanraj Party-in-Person in WP No.10238 of 2021 Mr.M.Ramamoorthi in WP No.4936 of 2021

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan State Government Pleader for R1 in WP No.10238 of 2021 & for R1 & R2 in WP No.4936 of 2021

¶22

Mr.M.Ramamoorthi for respondents 3 & 4 Mr.Karthikeyan, for H.R. & C.E. Department COMMON ORDER (Made by SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.)

¶23

In both these writ petitions, the respective petitioner seeks relief in respect of a tank in Virugambakkam. According to the respective petitioner, the Mettukulam Tank originally belonged to Sri Sundaravaradharaja Perumal Temple and that the said tank has now been taken over by private parties. It is further asserted by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.10238 of 2021 that several proceedings were initiated so as to restore the tank to the temple but to no avail.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for Sri Sundaravadharaja Perumal Temple also concurs with the aforesaid contention and states that the temple had also made a representation for the restoration of the tank but that such representation was rejected. Consequently, the temple filed W.P.No.4936 of 2021.

¶25

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without examining the merits of the matter, the petitioner in W.P.No10238 of 2021 is permitted to carry a fresh representation to the first respondent. Such representation shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the first respondent is directed to consider such representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation after hearing all parties affected thereby.

¶26

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

¶27

As regards the temple, the records disclose that the first respondent had rejected the appeal filed by the Executive Officer of the temple by a terse order. However, the matter is remanded to the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the same by considering all material evidence. For such purpose, the temple authorities viz., third and fourth respondents in W.P.No.10238 of 2021 are permitted to submit all material documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first respondent is directed to consider such appeal afresh without being influenced by the earlier order of rejection and pass a reasoned order thereon and communicate the same to the temple within eight weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶28

W.P.Nos.10238 of 2021 and 4936 of 2021 are disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.6005 of 2021 is closed.

¶29

s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
tar
To:
1. District Collector
Collectorate of Chennai Singaravelar Maaligai
62, Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600 001.
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department
119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai
Chennai 600 034.

¶30

The Executive Officer Sri Sundara Varadaraja Perumal Temple Kaliamman Koil Street Rajeshwari Nagar Virugambakkam Chennai 600 092.

¶31

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

¶32

The Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration Government of Tamil Nadu Ezhizhalgam Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶33

The Joint Commissioner HR and CE Department Chennai.

¶34

+2 Ccs to Mr.J.R. Roberts Advocate sr 25498, 25497 +1 CC to The Government Pleader sr 25715.

¶35

W.P.Nos.10238 & 4936 of 2021
PCH(CO)
SP(18/05/2021)

¶36

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

J.Mohanraj v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Mohanraj v. The District Collector

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

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs P. Janakiraman

P.Balasubramanian Vs The Commissioner

Nithya Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its

T.P.Subramanian Vs The Managing Director

Radha Industries Private Limited Vs Joseph Philips

The Chairman and Managing Director, Vs P.Janakiraman