Dismissed

C. Nagaraj v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC8 Dec 2022WP(MD)/663/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an order regarding temple property possession. The court held the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Writ dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file revision under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

C. Nagaraj Vs the Joint Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P. (MD) No. 663 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.12.2022

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. (MD) No. 663 of 2020

¶7

and W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 490 & 491 of 2020

C.Nagaraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Madurai.

¶12

2.The Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Dindigul.

¶13

3.The Inspector, H.R. & C.E. Department, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶14

4.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kambaraya Perumal Thirukoil, Cumbum, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶15

1/5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P. (MD) No. 663 of 2020

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.P.1504/2018 on 28.8.2019 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents herein from in anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of property in Theni District, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Cumbum and the land belongs to Arulmigu Kambaraya perumal Thirukoil in S.F.No.769 in D.No.16 over an extent of 1598 sq.feet.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R-1 to R-3 : Mr. VR.Shanmuganathan For R-4 : Mr. C.Guhaseelarupan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. VR.Shanmuganathan, Learned Counsel, Learned Counsel for the First to Third Respondents and Mr. C.Guhaseelarupan, Learned Counsel for the Fourth Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶22

When it was pointed out that the Petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy to challenge the Order in M.P. No. 1504 of 2018 dated

¶23

2/5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P. (MD) No. 663 of 2020

¶26

28.08.2019 passed by the Second Respondent, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, by filing a revision under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to resort to the aforesaid procedure and he has made an endorsement to that effect in the court record.

¶27

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, granting such liberty. It is made clear that for the purpose of reckoning limitation for availing the aforesaid remedy, the period from the date of filing of the Writ Petition, viz., 08.01.2020, till the date on which the certified copy of this order is made ready by the Registry, shall be excluded. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶28

08.12.2022

¶29

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No sm

¶30

Note: (i) Issue order copy by 22.12.2022. (ii) Registry is directed to return the original copy of the impugned order under written acknowledgment after retaining a copy of the same for record.

¶31

3/5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P. (MD) No. 663 of 2020

¶34

TO:

¶35

1.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Madurai.

¶36

2.The Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Dindigul.

¶37

3.The Inspector, H.R. & C.E. Department, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶38

4/5

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P. (MD) No. 663 of 2020

¶41

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶42

¶43

W.P. (MD) No. 663 of 2020

¶44

08.12.2022

¶45

5/5

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C. Nagaraj v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Nagaraj v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Ind-Barath Power Gencom Vs Assistant Commissioner

L.Sankar S/O.Lekku Reddiyar, Vs the Commissioner of Custom

L.Sankar Vs the Commissioner

Saravana Pandian, Vs the Joint Commissioner

A.Shanmugapriya, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Ind Barath Thermal Power Vs Assistant Commissioner