Disposed

Saji P. Iype v. The Commissioner

Madras HC7 Apr 2021WP/8663/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ seeking mandamus for a hearing and non-coercive action regarding disputed temple land. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Land Commissioner to determine the pending appeal within eight weeks, hearing both the temple and the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Land Commissioner to dispose of the ongoing appeal within eight weeks after hearing the petitioner and the Temple; PETITIONER NOT HELD OUT ORDER REPEATED IN FULL.

Saji P. Iype Vs The Commissioner — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

Writ Petition No.8663 of 2021

¶6

Mr.Saji P. Iype .. Petitioner
Vs
1 The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam
Chennai-600 034
2 The Land Commissioner
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3 The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
4 The Executive Officer,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
5 The Inspector of Police,
Bagalur Police Station,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. …Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.01.2021 consequently till then not to take any coercive steps by the 4^th respondent herein with regard to the petitioner property situated at Pichagundappalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri, comprised in Survey No.19, 20/1, 20/2, 22/1, 22/2 and 23 having a total extent of 23.68 acres.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh

¶9

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

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh Government Advocate – R1 to R3 and R5

¶11

Mr.R.Bharanidaran - R4

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R1 to R3 and R5 and Mr.R.Bharanidaran, learned counsel accepts notice for Executive Officer, Arulmighu Kothandaramasamy Temple/R4 (temple) and both are armed with instructions to proceed with the matter finally even at the stage of admission. Hence, by consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is disposed finally at this stage.

¶15

The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the first and second respondents, i.e., the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and the Land Commissioner to consider his representation dated 02.01.2021 and till then a direction to the 4^th respondent to desist from taking any coercive steps with regard to the property at Pichagundappalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri, comprised in Survey Nos.19, 20/1, 20/2, 22/1, 22/2 and 23 of a total extent of 23.68 acres (land in question).

¶16

The undisputed position is that the land in question is under cultivation by several cultivating tenants. There is, however, a dispute with regard to the title to the property, as, according to learned counsel for R4, the land belongs to the temple, whereas, according to the petitioner, he is the owner of the land, having purchased the same in 2017 from a private party.

¶17

The temple has challenged the grant of patta in favour of the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who by his order dated Nil, signed on 20.12.2019 states that he is not the proper party to consider such challenge and has directed the temple to approach the Land Commissioner. Accordingly, the temple has filed an appeal before the Land Commissioner on 09.02.2021 that is stated to be pending.

¶18

In such circumstances, it would suffice that a direction is issued to the Land Commissioner/R2 to dispose the appeal within a period of eight (8) weeks from today after hearing R4 as well as the petitioner (arrayed as a respondent in that appeal) and any other party that he may believe are proper parties to be heard in the disposal of the appeal.

¶19

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

¶20

The Writ Petition is disposed as above. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS VII) /TRUE COPY/

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar
sl
To
1 The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam
Chennai-600 034
2 The Land Commissioner
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3 The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
4 The Executive Officer,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
5 The Inspector of Police,
Bagalur Police Station,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
+1CC TO MR.R.RAMESH, ADVOCATE, SR.NO. NO 21824
+1CC TO M/S.SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO. 22185
Writ Petition No.8663 of 2021

¶22

PMK(CO) KKN 19.04.2021

¶23

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

Saji P. Iype v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji P. Iype v. The 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

A.Mohammed Usman Vs The Commissioner

Srs Travels and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Sales Tax officer

Hotel Anbagam Residency Vs The Commissioner

K.Guman Singh Vs Te State of Tamil Nadu

M/s. ShriNandhi Dhal Mills India Private Limited, Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

R.Jayakumar Vs The Commissioner