Dismissed

M.a.Sivalingam v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC10 Dec 2021WP/26388/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a de-facto temple trustee challenging the respondent's order to hand over temple properties. The court held that since the petitioner was not appointed as a trustee under the Act, he could not resist the appointment of a fit person for proper temple administration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to hand over administration, belongings, documents, and properties to the fit person.

M.a.Sivalingam Vs The Joint Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.12.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.26388 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.27854 of 2021

M.A.Sivalingam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Joint Commissioner,

¶10

Hindu Religious Charitable & Endowment Department, Erode.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner’s right of administration and management of the temple as de-facto trustee of “Arulmigu karumalai andavar temple” and “Ponmalai andavar temple” situated in 14, Mayilambadi village, Bhavani taluk, Erode district in a time bound manner .

¶13

For Petitioner : Mrs.V.S.Usharani

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's right of administration and management of the temple as de-facto trustee of “Arulmigu karumalai andavar temple” and “Ponmalai andavar temple” situated in 14, Mayilambadi village, Bhavani taluk, Erode district in a time bound manner

¶17

The petitioner states that the subject temple is an ancient temple founded more than 100 years back. The petitioner claims that the temple was constructed by his ancestors and belongs to Kongu Vellalar community in the subsect of Pulla Kula Kothiram residing in Bhavani and Andhiyur Taluk at Erode

¶18

district. The temple is having several deities, namely, “Arulmigu karumalai andavar”, “Arulmigu Kariakaliamman”, “Arulmigu Kaliaperumal”, “Arulmigu Aindhu sadaiyappan”, “Arulmigu Azhagu Nachiamman” and the said deities are kula theivam to kongu vellalar community, particularly, Pulla kula kothiram people residing in Bhavani and Andhiyur taluk at Erode district

¶19

The petitioner states that the temples have been administered and managed by the community people particularly Kongu Vellalar Gounder community in the subsect of Pulla Kula Kothiram.

¶20

The petitioner claims that he is the de-facto trustee managing the administration of the temple along with de-facto trustees, namely, R.Kaliannan, C.Sakthivel, A.Veluchamy, R.Kathirvel, N.Ponnusamy, G.Prabhu, M.Kathirvel, N.Kailasam, K.Alagesan and they all are selected as representatives by their community people.

¶21

The grievances of the Writ Petitioner is that he has already filed O.A.No.151 of 2021 before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE for framing scheme enabling the temple to run in a proper manner.

¶22

As far as the present Writ Petition is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 obtained by the petitioner asking him to hand over the properties and belongings of the temple to the fit person, who has already been appointed is untenable.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner / de-facto trustee was not provided with an opportunity to defend his case and the fit person was appointed by the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, without hearing the de-facto trustees. Thus, the Writ Petition has to be considered.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the de-facto trustees are running the administration in a proper manner and there is no mismanagement or otherwise. Thus, the appointment of a fit person by the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department itself is unwarranted.

¶25

The learned Special Government Pleader, HR & CE, appearing on behalf of the respondent Department obtained a written instructions dated 09.12.2021. The written instructions submitted on behalf of the Department states that the petitioner at no circumstances was appointment as trustee of the temple. The Petitioner was not properly appointed as a trustee of the

¶26

temple under the provisions of the Act. Thus, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable.

¶27

The subject temple is having immovable properties to an extent of 15.47 acres in S.No.484 and S.No.482, Mayilambadi Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. The petitioner has encroached upon the temple land and utilizing the same for his personal gains. Therefore, the temple has sustained a huge financial loss and accordingly, actions are initiated.

¶28

In view of the fact that the temple possess an immovable property to an extent of 15.47 Acres and the petitioner is in possession of the said property, the authorities had formed an opinion that some mismanagement occurred and appointed a fit person by invoking the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

¶29

The fit person was appointed 3 ½ years back and petitioner who claims to be the de-facto trustee is going on submitting representation and not handed over the possession of the valuables and belongings of the temple to the fit person. Thus, the authorities issued the order dated 25.10.2021 asking the petitioner to hand over the Temple administration and belongings and other documents and properties to the fit person on 01.11.2021.

¶30

In view of the fact that the petitioner is not even appointed as a trustee under the provisions of the Act and he himself claiming as de-facto trustee and in illegal occupation of the temple property measuring to an extent of 15.47 acres and the authorities competent appointed a fit person 3 ½ years back, there is no reason to interfere with the order impugned which is consequential. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to hand over the administration, belongings, documents etc., to the fit person, for the purpose of administering the temple in a proper manner.

¶31

This being the factum, the petitioner has not established any prima facie case for the purpose of entertaining the Writ Petition as the petitioner is not even a trustee appointed under the provisions of the Act by following the procedure. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and fails.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has filed an application under the provisions of the Act before the Joint Commissioner to consider his claim. The said application shall be adjudicated and appropriate decision has to be taken, as expeditiously as possible.

¶33

In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶34

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶37

//True Copy//

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

shr/kan

¶40

¶41

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable & Endowment Department, Erode.

¶42

+1cc to M/s.V.S.Usha Rani, Advocate, S.R.No.65880

¶43

W.P.No.26388 of 2021

¶44

PL(CO) SU(30/12/2021)

M.a.Sivalingam v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Sivalingam v. The Joint Commissioner

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

Palaniammal Vs the Assistant Electricity

Smt.G.Selvi Vs The Zonal Manager

Vairakkalyani Vs the Controller of Examination

K.Natarajan Vs the Director

Syed Mazhar Hussain Vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Mr. Jacob Mathew Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.