Allowed

R.Thangaraj v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC8 Oct 2021WP/38365/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging eviction proceedings regarding temple property. The court held that there was doubt regarding service of notice in the existing proceedings. It directed the respondent authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 78 of the TN HR&CE Act within four months, declaring previous proceedings effaced.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under Section 78 of the TN HR&CE Act were directed to be done de novo; first respondent to issue notice afresh and conclude proceedings within four months.

R.Thangaraj Vs The Joint Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.10.2021

¶3

 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

 W.P.No.38365 of 2015

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

1.R.Thangaraj,

¶9

2.R.Gunasekaran,

¶10

 ...Petitioners

¶11

Vs

¶12

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Coimbatore.

¶14

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Erode

¶15

3.The Executive Officer,

¶16

Arulmigu Vijayapuriamman Temple, Sullipalayam, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.

¶17

4.The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. ...Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not
to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
property and to evict them from the property situated in R.S.
No.13/2 in Sullipalayam Village, Perundurari Taluk, Erode
District without adhering the due process of law and without
affording any opportunity of hearing.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar
for Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma
For Respondents : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan
Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Captioned writ petition turns on a very narrow compass.

¶22

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

¶23

2.'1.055.0 hectares of land in R.S.No.13/2 in
Sullipalayam village, Coimbatore District' (hereinafter 'said
land' for the sake of convenience and clarity) is the subject
matter and the temple concerned is 'Arulmigu Vijayapuriammman
Temple, Sullipalayam, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District'
(hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and
clarity).

¶24

3. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that said
land was purchased by his father Late Ramasamy in and by a
registered sale deed dated 09.02.1987 and he bequeathed it
inter-alia to the writ petitioners by a Will dated 12.09.2000.
The writ petitioners case is that the said temple is interfering
with the possession of said land de-hors due process of law.
On this basis, a Mandamus has been sought directing the said
temple to not to evict the writ petitioners qua said land and
not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners qua
said land.

¶25

4. Mr. L. Chandra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of counsel on record for writ petitioners submits that
said temple cannot disturb the possession of the writ
petitioners de-hors due process of law.

¶26

5. Mr. NRR. Arun Natarajan, learned State counsel
appearing on behalf of respondents, who shall collectively be
referred to as 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department' (hereinafter 'TN HR&CE Dept.' for the
sake of convenience and clarity), adverting to counter-affidavit
filed by the 3rd respondent (Executive Officer of said temple)
submits that it is not correct to say that the said temple has
not followed due process of law. Learned State Counsel submits
that proceedings under Section 78 of 'The Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act
22/ 1959)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'TN HR&CE
Act' have been duly initiated vide M.P.No.77 of 2011/B1 on
15.02.2012.

¶27

6. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners submits, on
instructions, that the writ petitioners have not received notice
in the 78 proceedings. The records of the respondents
demonstrate that proceedings have been initiated under Section
78 of TN HR&CE Act, but it is not clear 'beyond doubt' as to
whether the proceedings/notice has been duly served on the writ
petitioners.

¶28

7. Therefore, giving the benefit of this doubt to the
writ petitioners, this Court is of the view that it is only
appropriate that the proceedings initiated vide M.P.No.77 of
2011/B1 are done de novo i.e., by sending notice in the same
i.e., M.P.No.77 of 2011/B1 on the file of the first respondent

¶29

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

¶30

(Joint Commissioner) afresh. Learned counsel for writ
petitioners, on instructions, submits that the writ petitioners
will cooperate with the proceedings and not delay the same by
seeking unnecessary adjournments. The proceedings thus far in
M.P.No.77 of 2011/B1 will stand effaced. The first respondent
shall issue notice afresh in M.P.No.77 of 2011/B1 (proceedings
under Section 78 of TN HR&CE Act) and conclude the same as
expeditiously as his official business would permit and in any
event, within four months from today i.e., by 08.02.2022. All
questions including the questions raised in the captioned writ
petition are left open with regard to both sides as the same
would be available to the extent permissible qua scope of
Section 78 of TN HR&CE Act before the first respondent.

¶31

Captioned writ petition is disposed of with the above
directives. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

gpa/nst

¶36

To

¶37

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶38

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Coimbatore.

¶39

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶40

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Erode

¶41

3.The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.

¶42

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu, Vijayapuriamman Temple, Sullipalayam, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.

¶43

+1cc to Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, Advocate SR.No.53065

¶44

W.P.Nos38365 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶45

PCH(CO)
RVM(02/11/2021)

¶46

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

R.Thangaraj v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Thangaraj 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

Arulmigu Jothipuram Thandumariamman Vs The Joint Commissioner

Alfred Ravindran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Rajam Hotels P.Ltd, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Tvl. Bishweshwar lal Steels, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Napa Radhakrishnan Vs The Income Tax Officer

M/s.Arun Autocom Vs The Senior Intelligence officer