Dismissed

L.Murugasamy v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC8 Oct 2021WP/38366/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a stay on eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, noting that the petitioners could have challenged the eviction only via Section 79(2) of the Act and that their civil suit had been dismissed for default. The Court also directed the temple to complete its Section 78 proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were dismissed.

L.Murugasamy Vs The Joint Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | 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.38366 of 2015
&

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

1.L.Murugasamy

¶8

2.K.Rajamanickam,

¶9

3.K.Ramasamy

¶10

4.K.Subramaniam

¶11

5.K.Sundaramoorthi,

¶12

6.K.Chinnasamy

¶13

 ...Petitioners

¶14

Vs

¶15

1.The Joint Commissioner

¶16

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Coimbatore.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.25/2 in Sullipalayam Village, Perundurari Taluk, Erode
District without adhering the due process of law and without
affording any opportunity of hearing.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar

¶22

for Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan
Government Advocate

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

'Land admeasuring 2.64.0 hectares comprised in
R.S.No.25/2, Sullipalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode
District' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience
and clarity) is the subject matter of the captioned writ
petitions and the temple we are concerned is 'Arulmigu
Vijayapuriamman Temple at Sullipalayam, Perundurai Taluk, Erode
District' (hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience
and clarity).

¶27

2. Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the counsel on record for the writ petitioners and
Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned State Counsel on behalf of
respondents 1 to 3 hereinafter collectively referred to as 'TN
HR&CE Dept.' and also representing the State Public Prosecutor's
Office on behalf of 4th respondent are before me.

¶28

3. Learned Counsel for writ petitioner submits that said
temple is disturbing the writ petitioners' possession qua said
land de hors due process of law.

¶29

4. Responding to the above and adverting to the detailed
counter affidavit filed by TN HR&CE Dept., learned State counsel
submits that due process of law has been adhered to as said
temple has initiated proceedings under Section 78 of 'The Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil
Nadu Act.22 of 1959)' which shall hereinafter be referred to 'TN
HR&CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity. Learned
Counsel submits that this position stands admitted by the writ
petitioners as there is an averment in this regard in paragraph
3 of the writ affidavit which reads as follows:

¶30

'3) The petitioners further submits that when
that be the position, in the year 2012, the 3rd
respondent, the Executive Officer of A/m.
Vijayapuriamman temple of Sullipalayam, took steps
to evict them forcibly and on enquiry, it revealed
that the Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E., the 1st
respondent herein passed order for eviction under
Sec.78 of Tamil Nadu H.R & C.E. Act as if the above
land belongs to the 4th respondent temple on
15.02.2012 without conducting any proper enquiry. As
the respondents took hectic steps to evict them,
O.S.No.17 of 2013 on the file of District Munsiff
Court, Perundurai, came to be filed against the
respondents herein and sought for a declaration of
the title based on their long possession and
enjoyment apart from the valid sale deed of the same
and for a permanent injuction restraining the

¶31

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

¶32

respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from
the application was also taken up for interim
injuction in I.A.No.89 of 2013 against the
respondents in the above suit in which notice was
ordered and the same is pending enquiry. In the
above suit, the respondents also filed written
statement contesting the suit property. That apart,
we have also sought for a declaration that the order
passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15.02.2012 as
null and void and not binding upon the petitioners.'

¶33

5. Interestingly and intriguingly, after 78 proceedings,
the writ petitioners have filed a civil suit in the
jurisdictional Civil Court vide O.S.No.17 of 2013 on the file of
the District Munsif's Court, Perundurai. The prayer paragraph
in the plaint is paragraph 11 and a perusal of the prayer
reveals that the writ petitioners have inter alia sought
declaration of orders made in Section 78 proceedings being order
dated 15.02.2012 bearing file number 76/2011/B1 made by the
Joint Commissioner (first respondent in captioned writ petition
and second defendant in the suit) as null and void. Such a suit
is clearly impermissible, as suit if any can only be under
Section 79 (2) of TN HR&CE Act assailing title of said temple,
but that is not the case here.

¶34

6. Therefore, proceedings under Section 78 of TN HR&CE
Act initiated by said temple and orders made in the same, have
to be assailed in the manner provided in TN HR&CE Act, which has
been repeatedly held to be a self-contained Statute by this
Court in a long line of authorities, more importantly, if the
writ petitioners have a rival claim, there is a provision for
the same vide Section 79(2) of TN HR&CE Act (as alluded to
supra) and therefore, the suit is clearly not misconceived.
However, learned counsel for writ petitioners very fairly on
instructions, submits that the suit as of today has been
dismissed for default and date of dismissal for default is
04.04.2018. In the light of narrative thus far and the obtaining
legal position, the question of restoration of the suit does not
arise.

¶35

7. It is open to the said temple to carry Section 78
proceedings to its logical end. As this Court is parens patriae
inter alia in the light of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in A.A.Gopalakrishnan case law [A.A.Gopalakrishnan Vs.
Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 482],
this Court deems it appropriate to observe that said temple will
do well to carry Section 78 proceedings to its logical end as
expeditiously as possible and in any event, within two months
from today i.e., on or before 08.12.2021.

¶36

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

¶37

8. Therefore captioned writ petition is dismissed.
Consequently connected M.Ps are also dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶42

gpa/nst

¶43

To

¶44

1.The Joint Commissioner

¶45

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Coimbatore.

¶46

2.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶47

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Erode, District

¶48

3.The Executive Officer,

¶49

Arulmigu Vijayapuriamman Temple, Sullipalayam, Perundurai Taluk,

¶50

Erode

¶51

4.The Inspector of Police

¶52

Perundurai Taluk

¶53

Erode District

¶54

+1cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate SR.No.53066

¶55

 W.P.No.38366 of 2015 &
M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶56

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

¶57

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

L.Murugasamy v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Murugasamy 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

Cases cited

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