Allowed

L.Viswalingam v. the Commissioner

Madras HC1 Dec 2021WP(MD)/18797/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenged a communication from the Assistant Commissioner objecting to the registration of temple lands beyond the area covered by a compromise decree. The Court held that the decree restricted the temple's entitlement to 10 cents. The communication was quashed, and the officer was directed to re-send it restricting the objection to these 10 cents.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned communication. Directed the Second Respondent to re-send a communication within a fortnight restricting the temple's objection to 10 cents out of 7 acres 84 cents.

L.Viswalingam Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

WP(MD) No.18797 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.12.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P(MD) No.18797 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13597 & 13598 of 2016

¶7

1.L.Viswalingam (Died)

¶8

2.Mrs.V.Sulochana

¶9

3.Mr.V.Jeyaraj

¶10

4.Mrs.R.Geetha (Petitioners 2 to 4 substituted vide Court order dated 13.03.2020 in W.M.P.(MD) No.1561/2020) ... Petitioners Vs.

¶11

1.The Commissioner,

¶12

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai.

¶13

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

¶14

Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶15

3.The District Registrar,

¶16

Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶17

4.The Sub Registrar, Chinnalapatti,

¶18

Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.262/2008/A3 dated 23.02.2015, and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to register any document presented for registration in respect of the petitioner's property in Survey No.14/1A1, Ambadurai Village, Chinnalapatti, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District, within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates (Law Firm) For Respondents : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, Addl. Government Pleader.

¶22

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

¶23

1/8

¶24

WP(MD) No.18797 of 2016

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Temples which go by the name Arulmigu Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple and Sri Patrakaliamman Temple and situate in Ambadurai Village, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District' (hereinafter collectively 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity) constitute the nucleus of the captioned main writ petition and 'lands comprised in Survey No.14/1A1 in the same Village, admeasuring 7 acres and 84 cents' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity) belonging to the said temple and a dispute pertaining to the same is the central theme of the matter on hand.

¶27

Title dispute regarding said land between said temple and a private party (Chennamalan Chettiar) culminated in a second appeal in this Court vide S.A.No.168 of 1965 & C.M.P. therein being C.M.P.No.5859 of 1970 and a compromise decree dated 16.04.1970 came to be made in the same. This compromise decree has been placed before me and the same is as follows:

¶28

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

¶29

2/8

¶30

WP(MD) No.18797 of 2016

¶31

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

¶32

3/8

¶33

WP(MD) No.18797 of 2016

¶34

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

¶35

4/8

¶36

WP(MD) No.18797 of 2016

¶37

Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that writ petitioners' father one L.Viswalingam was purchaser of said land from aforementioned third party in and by a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1993, registered on the file of jurisdictional registration office.

¶38

Before I proceed further, I deem it appropriate to record two points that are noticed in the aforementioned compromise decree. One point is, the schedule says 3 acres and 44 cents from and out of a total extent of 7 acres and 84 cents but clause 3 of the compromise decree talks about 10 cents from and out of 7 acres and 84 cents being given to said temple. The second aspect noticed in the compromise decree is it talks about proceedings of Commissioner of 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department' https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (hereinafter 'TN HR&CE Dept.' for the sake of convenience and

¶39

5/8

¶40

WP(MD) No.18797 of 2016

¶41

clarity) being proceedings dated 16.03.1970 bearing reference Kdis.34234/69 in pursuance of which, the compromise has been made. Therefore, this proceeding has to necessarily be construed as proceedings under Section 43 of 'The Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959)' {hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity}. To be noted, Section 43 talks about 'sanction for compromise of legal proceedings'.

¶42

I now proceed further with the issue on hand. Pursuant to a request from the jurisdictional registering authority, the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner of TN HR&CE Dept.) has sent 'a communication dated 23.02.2015 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.262/2008/A3' (hereinafter 'impugned communication' for convenience and clarity) and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶43

Captioned main writ petition has been filled assailing the aforementioned impugned communication. The sheet anchor submission is while the compromise decree makes it clear that the said temple is entitled to 10 cents from and out of 7 acres and 84 cents in said land, the impugned communication not only reads otherwise but it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ states the converse is learned counsel's say. Learned counsel

¶44

6/8

¶45

WP(MD) No.18797 of 2016

¶46

submits that the impugned communication says that there will be objection for registration for 7 acres and 84 cents except / excluding 10 cents. A careful perusal of the compromise decree makes it clear that said temple is entitled to 10 cents from and out of 7 acres and 84 cents qua said land and therefore the objection will be restricted to 10 cents from and out of 7 acres and 84 cents i.e., said land (as per the compromise decree referred to supra). Learned State Counsel on instructions, affirms this position, affirms that decree is operating and said temple is entitled to 10 cents only. This by itself downs the curtains on the captioned writ petition.

¶47

The sequitur is, the impugned communication is quashed / set aside giving a further directive to the second respondent to re-send the communication afresh making it clear that objection of said temple is restricted to 10 cents from and out of 7 acres and 84 cents in said land. This communication shall be resent by the second respondent within a fortnight from today i.e., on or before 15.12.2021 and the fourth respondent thereafter can proceed further in accordance with law if any document is presented.

¶48

Captioned Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are also closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶51

// True Copy //

¶52

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶53

vsm

¶54

¶55

1.The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Chennai.

¶56

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

¶57

3.The District Registrar, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶58

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

¶59

7/8

¶60

WP(MD) No.18797 of 2016

¶61

4.The Sub Registrar, Chinnalapatti, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶62

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-36971[F] dated 02/12/2021 )

¶63

+1 CC to M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-37103[F] dated 02/12/2021 )

¶64

W.P(MD)No.18797 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13597 & 13598 of 2016 01.12.2021

¶65

SK(CO) TR(13.12.2021) 8P 7C

¶66

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

¶67

8/8

L.Viswalingam v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Viswalingam 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/M. Karuppanasamy Temple, Vs the Jonit Commissioner

K. Chelladurai Servai, Vs the Secretary to Government

Dr.S.Gurushankar, Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

S.Balan, Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu

Chinnupoosari Vs the Joint Commissioner

Arasan Beedi Co. Ltd., Vs the State of Tamilnadu