Disposed

Sudha v. The District Collector

Madras HC27 Oct 2021WP/22693/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged encroachment on temple land by a godown. The court held that since a civil suit was instituted by the temple, the Joint Commissioner has the authority to take action under Section 78. The petition was disposed of without costs, directing action upon notice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Joint Commissioner to take immediate appropriate action under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 upon notice to the encroacher.

Sudha Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶7

WP NO.22693 OF 2021

¶8

Sudha

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

Vs.
1. The District Collector
 Thiruvallur District at Tiruvallur.

¶11

2. The Commissioner
 HR and CE, Shastri Bhawan, Nungambakkam,
 Chennai-600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner
 HR and CE, TN RTO Road, Nehru Nagar,
 Sathuvacharry, Vellore District.
4. The Executive Officer
 Sri Kasiwishvanatha Swami Thirukoil and
 Thirumazhi Temple, Nasarathpet,
 Poonamallee Taluk, Chennai.
5. The Tahsildar
 Poonamallee Taluk Office, Poonamallee,
 Thiruvallur District.
6. L.Elumalai
..Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 5 and to take action in perusal of the

¶13

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

¶14

representation dated 21.10.2019 and 24.11.2019 given by the
petitioner and thereby to demolish the elevate superstructure of
Godown was been illegally constructed by 6th respondent in the
place of Sri Kasiwishvanatha Swami Thirukoil land in light of /
pursuant the reply of 3rd respondent dated 23.10.2019 and
consequently to handover the vacant possession to the 3rd
respondents H.R and C.E authorities.

¶15

For the Petitioner: Mr.P.A.Chitramani
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar,
 State Government Pleader,
 for respondents 1 to 3 and 5

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶18

The petitioner complains of encroachment in land
belonging to Arulmighu Kasiviswanatha Swami Temple at
Nasarathpet, Poonamallee Taluk of Tiruvallur District.

¶19

2. Mr.Muthukumar, learned Government Pleader, takes
notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and submits, on the
basis of written instructions furnished by the fourth
respondent, that the sixth respondent herein has attempted to
build a warehouse over 2900 sq.ft at S.No.52/1 by relying on a
purported sale deed obtained from a previous trustee of the
temple. It is further submitted by the official respondents that
the temple has instituted O.S.No.323 of 2019 in the court of
District Munsif at Poonamaleee, seeking permanent injunction.
The manner in which the suit has been framed, it is evident that
the plaintiff temple asserts that the land belongs to the temple
and no question arises of the sixth respondent herein having any
right to make any construction thereupon.

¶20

3. Since the suit has been instituted and the Joint
Commissioner has due authority to take action against the sixth
respondent, inter alia, under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the concerned
Joint Commissioner should take immediate appropriate action in
accordance with law upon due notice to the sixth respondent.

¶21

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

¶22

4. Since any action to be taken will be upon previous
notice to the sixth respondent, no previous service of the
present petition has been required to be effected on the sixth
respondent. However, the petitioner will remain obliged to
immediately forward copies of the petition and this order to the
sixth respondent.

¶23

5. W.P.No.22693 of 2021 is disposed of without any order
as to costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

tar

¶29

To:

¶30

1. The District Collector Thiruvallur District at Tiruvallur.

¶31

2. The Commissioner
 HR and CE, Shastri Bhawan, Nungambakkam,
 Chennai-600 034.

¶32

3. The Joint Commissioner
 HR and CE, TN RTO Road, Nehru Nagar,
 Sathuvacharry, Vellore District.

¶33

4. The Executive Officer
 Sri Kasiwishvanatha Swami Thirukoil and
 Thirumazhi Temple, Nasarathpet,
 Poonamallee Taluk, Chennai.

¶34

5. The Tahsildar
 Poonamallee Taluk Office, Poonamallee,
 Thiruvallur District.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.P.A.Chitramani, Advocate, S.R.No.55235

¶36

WP No.22693 of 2021

¶37

RLD(CO)

¶38

RLP(10/11/2021)

¶39

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

Sudha v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swami Vivekananda Vs the Assistant Provident Fund

The Liquidator Vs the Assistant Providet Fund

The Assistant General Manager Vs the Central Government

K.Balaji Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

C.S.Prathiba Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Shanmugavelu Vs the Authorised Officer