Allowed

Seenivas Thangadurai.v v. The Commissioner

Madras HC5 Aug 2021WP(MD)/13511/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner, claiming to be a hereditary trustee, sought to prevent the alienation of temple land. The court observed that without specific details on the proposed alienation, a generic preventive order could not be granted but directed the respondents to consider the pending representation under Section 34 of the HNCE Act.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's representation of 30.06.2021 and dispose of it by a reasoned order within two months.

Seenivas Thangadurai.v Vs The Commissioner — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P. No.13511 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.08.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD) No.13511 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD) No.10470 of 2021

¶4

V.Seenivas Thangadurai ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious

¶7

and Charitable Endowments, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶8

The Joint Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,

¶9

Thoothukudi.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,

¶11

Thoothukudi.

¶12

The Executive Officer,

¶13

Shri Arulmigu Sengottai Ayyan Sastha Mutharamman Thirukkovil,

¶14

Office at:-

¶15

Chettiapathu, Udangudi,

¶16

Thoothududi District. Pin – 628 203.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 30.06.2021 and subsequently direct them not to alienate/transfer any land in Iyan Punjai S.No.363/1A1, 1A2 and 1 E of the Naduvakurichi Village, Thoothukudi District against the interest of the Shri Senkottai Iyyan Sastha and Shri Mutharamman Temple, Naduvakurichi by violating the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Endowment Act.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus For Respondents : Mr. P.Subbaraj Counsel for State - For R1 to R3

¶20

The petitioner seeks to prevent the alienation of lands belonging to Shri Arulmigu Sengottai Ayyan Sastha and Shri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/3

¶22

W.P. No.13511 of 2021

¶23

Mutharamman Temple, Naduvakurichi Village, Thoothukudi District.

¶24

The petitioner states that the aforesaid temple owns land in Survey Nos.363/1A1, 1A2 and 1E of the Naduvakurichi Villge, Thoothukudi District. The petitioner claims to be a hereditary trustee of the temple. He states that he has came to know that steps have been taken to alienate a portion of the temple property for constructing a building. In spite of submitting a representation objecting to such proposal, it is stated that the respondent authorities are proceeding with the proposal to put up a building on the temple property.

¶25

Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

¶26

The documents on record do not contain any particulars with regard to the proposed alienation of the properties of the temple. In such circumstances, a generic order cannot be granted to prevent such alienation. The petitioner is correct in pointing out that Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 specifies the procedure to be followed if a temple property is to be alienated. Needless to say, such procedure should be followed and, in case of non-compliance, it would be open to any person aggrieved to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶27

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the petitioner's representation, the respondents herein are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.06.2021 and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.13511 of 2021 is disposed of on these terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD). No.10470 of 2021 is closed.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

sbn

¶32

¶33

The Commissioner,

¶34

Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶36

2/3

¶37

W.P. No.13511 of 2021

¶38

The Joint Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Thoothukudi. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Thoothukudi. 4. The Executive Officer, Shri Arulmigu Sengottai Ayyan Sastha Mutharamman Thirukkovil, Office at:Chettiapathu, Udangudi, Thoothududi District. Pin – 628 203. +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-25531[F] dated 06/08/2021 ) W.P.(MD).No.13511 of 2021 05.08.2021 RD(16.08.2021) 3P 6C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Seenivas Thangadurai.v v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seenivas Thangadurai.v 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

Palraj.v Vs the Chief Secretary

Ramalingam.M Vs the District Collector

Ramesh Kannan.M Vs the District Collector

C. Sam Devadasan, Vs S. Jeyakumar

Anthonysamy Vs The Revenue divisional Officer/Maintenance Tribunal

Gangadaran.R Vs the Block Educational Officer