Dismissed

Lakshmiammal K.V. v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC19 Jan 2022WP(MD)/851/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act directing the petitioner to vacate temple land. The court held the notice was under Section 79(1), not Section 78(2), and that the petitioner's pending title suit was a non-starter given findings of the temple's title, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lakshmiammal K.V. Vs the Joint Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.01.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶4

and

¶5

W.M.P.(MD)No.682 of 2022

K.V. Lakshmiammal

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶10

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

3.The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundram, Madurai.

¶12

4.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,

¶14

Madurai. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice passed by the 4^th respondent in Na. Ka. No.2348/2007-1 Aa-1, dated 05.01.2022 and pass such further or other orders.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate for R1, R2 & R4 Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for R3.

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

A notice 'dated 05.01.2022 bearing reference e.f.vz; .2348/2007-1 M1' issued by the fourth respondent (hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity) has been assailed in the captioned main writ petition.

¶19

Captioned matter was moved by way of Lunch Motion. Mr.H.Velavadhas, learned counsel for writ petitioner, Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate, who accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 4 and Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/14

¶21

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶22

private counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of the third respondent (Executive Officer of 'Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple situate in Thirupparankundram in Madurai District', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said temple') are before this Court.

¶23

Owing to the narrow compass on which the captioned matter turns, the main writ petition was taken up with the consent of all the aforementioned learned counsel.

¶24

Short facts shorn of particulars which are not imperative for appreciating this order are that the subject matter of case on hand is 'immovable property (land and superstructure) admeasuring 1368 sq. ft or thereabouts situate in Old Survey No.196/14A, New Survey No.945/6 in Thirupparankundram Maanagar (khefh; ), Thirupparankumdram, Madurai District' (hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity) and removal of writ petitioner from the same under the 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act No.22 of 1959)' [hereinafter 'TN HR&CE Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]; that 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'TN HR&CE Dept.' for the sake of convenience and clarity; that proceedings under Section 78(2) of TN HR&CE Act was kick-started nearly one and half decades ago, to be precise on 14.02.2007 (nearly 15 years ago) by way of a notice under Section 78(2) of TN HR&CE Act; that the 78(2) notice dated 14.02.2007 was challenged by the writ petitioner and other legal heirs of writ petitioner's spouse (Thiru Late K.K.Viswanathan) vide O.S.No.135 of 2007 originally on the file of Principal Sub Court, Madurai; that O.S.No.135 of 2007 was transferred from the file of Principal Sub Court Madurai to Sub Court Tirumangalam and re-numbered as O.S.No.1 of 2017; that O.S.No.1 of 2017 was dismissed as not pressed owing to a memo filed by the plaintiffs on 24.11.2021; that in the interregnum a 'show cause notice' ('SCN' for the sake of brevity) was issued on 19.01.2009 to the writ petitioner; that this 19.01.2009 SCN was assailed by way of a writ petition by the writ petitioner in instant case (K.V.Lakshmiammal) vide W.P.(MD)No.10566 of 2009, the same came to be disposed of (after full contest) by a Hon'ble Single Judge in and by order dated 08.12.2009 making it clear that the first respondent (jurisdictional Joint Commissioner) shall complete the proceedings initiated by him by giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner; that the writ petitioner carried this matter in appeal by way of an intra Court appeal vide W.A.(MD)No.694 of 2009 and a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal in and by order dated 23.02.2010 confirming the order of Hon'ble Single Judge (there shall be a little more discussion on this infra); that thereafter proceedings under Section 78 of TN HR&CE Act took shape in the form of M.P.No.1 of 2015 on the file of first respondent, after full contest, M.P.No.1 of 2015 was ordered in and by order dated 09.09.2021 made by the first respondent inter alia holding that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petitioner is a encroacher qua said property within the meaning

¶25

2/14

¶26

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶27

of Section 78 of TN HR&CE Act and giving 30 days time to the writ petitioner to remove herself from the said property and hand over possession of the same to said temple; that this order of first respondent (admittedly) was served on the writ petitioner on 27.09.2021; that thereafter the writ petitioner filed a second civil suit in O.S.No.417 of 2021 in Madurai District Court; that this suit was filed on 20.10.2021; that this suit was transferred to IV Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court; that in this suit the writ petitioner has arrayed the temple, jurisdictional Joint Commissioner and Joint Commissioner Sivagangai as defendants and inter alia prayed for a declaration that suit property (said property too) belongs to plaintiffs, a consequential injunction and also a declaration that 09.09.2021 order made by the first respondent is void and inoperative; that this second civil suit has been filed by the writ petitioner as first plaintiff along with five others who are legal heirs of Thiru Late K.K.Viswanathan (writ petitioner's spouse); that this second civil suit is pending; that much before all these events, a suit in O.S.No.4 of 1920 came to be laid on the file of I Additional Sub Judge's Court, Madurai regarding properties of said temple; that this suit culminated in a judgment of Privy Council dated 12.05.1931 reported in 1931 SCC OnLine PC 47; that under such circumstances, captioned main writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned notice.

¶28

Notwithstanding very many averments in the writ affidavit and several grounds raised in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioner made focused submissions in the hearing, a summation of which is as follows:

¶29

a) impugned notice is under Section 78(2) of TN HR&CE Act and such a notice can be issued only by the Joint Commissioner and not by Assistant Commissioner;

¶30

b) under Rule 4 of 'The Removal of Encorachments on Lands or Buildings Belonging to Religious Institutions Rules' (G.O.Ms.No.383, Revenue, dated 29 th January 1962 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.275 C.T. & R.E., dated 16 th July 1997) [hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity], 30 days time ought to be given as far as impugned notice is concerned but barely 6 clear days have been given as the impugned notice was served on the writ petitioner only on 12.01.2022 and ultimatum is 10 AM on 19.01.2022;

¶31

c) that a title suit in O.S.No.417 of 2021 is pending and therefore, the impugned notice at this juncture is bad;

¶32

6. Learned State Counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 4 on instructions submitted as follows:

¶33

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

¶34

3/14

¶35

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶36

a) after narrating the facts (captured supra), learned State Counsel submitted that the impugned notice is under Section 79(1) of TN HR&CE Act and not under Section 78(2) of TN HR&CE Act as contended;

¶37

b) the proceedings commenced nearly 15 years ago on 14.02.2007;

¶38

7. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Private Counsel, who accepted notice on behalf of third respondent (Executive Officer of said temple who is in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner of TN HR&CE Dept.) made submissions which are as follows:

¶39

a) originally 14.02.2007 notice was challenged by way of a suit which was withdrawn and the subsequent SCN dated 19.01.2009 was also unsuccessfully challenged by way of writ petition / writ appeal, the order dated 09.09.2021 has given enough time i.e., 30 days to the writ petitioner and therefore the argument that sufficient time has not been given as per said Rules is no argument;

¶40

b) learned private counsel for temple pointed out that I.A.No.764 of 2021 has been moved for interim injunction in aforementioned O.S.No.417 of 2021, it is scheduled to come up on 21.01.2022 and advance hearing petition has been filed today;

¶41

8. By way of reply arguments, learned counsel for writ petitioner besides reiterating his submissions made in the opening arguments, submitted that the writ petitioner's title suit is pending.

¶42

9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the case file placed before this Court and after analysing the points projected before this Court and the case file comes to the conclusion that the prayer in the captioned main writ petition cannot be acceded to and the reasons are as follows:

¶43

a) the earliest title qua said property is O.S.No.4 of 1920 on the file of I Additional Sub Judge's Court, Madurai, which was carried in appeal to the Privy Council. To be noted, as already alluded to supra (in the factual matrix) Privy Council decided this matter on 12.05.1931 and this judgment has been reported in 1931 SCC OnLine PC 47. In this judgment, the Privy Council constituted by 5 noble men, i.e., Lords in Privy Council as they then were, inter alia held that they are of the opinion that said temple (to be noted said temple is the appellant) had shown that the unoccupied portion of the hill has been in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ possession of the temple from time immemorial and has

¶44

4/14

¶45

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶46

been treated by the temple authorities as their property. To be noted, the question before the Privy Council was whether any presumption should be drawn from the confiscation of the endowed villages as to the property rights in the waste land situate within the Ghiri Veedhi and forming part of the Malaiprakaram. Most important finding is, it was admitted that the village of Tirupparankundram in which said temple is situate was part of this endowment. The excerpted paragraphs of Judgement of Privy Counsel is as follows:

¶47

'Their Lordships will now return to the matter with which the present appeal is immediately concerned. The question is whether any presumption should be drawn from the confiscation of the endowed villages as to the proprietary rights in the waste land situate within the Ghiri Veedhi and forming part of the Malaiprakaram. It is admitted that the village of Tirupparankundram, in which the temple is situated, was part of this endowment.

¶48

The Tirupparankundarm Temple is one of the famous rock temples of Southern India. It is situated at the base of a hill some 500 feet high; and is dedicated to Subramanya, the son of Siva. The inner shrine of the temple is hewn out of the hill and in it, carved in the rock itself, is the image of the deity. Around the base of the hill is a pilgrims way, nearly two miles in extent. This is said to be essential to the worship of the devotees, who perform the ceremony of pradakshinam by going round the image of the deity with the right shoulder continuously presented to him. As the image in the temple is an actual part of the hill, it is obvious that the performance of this rite necessitates the perambulation of the hill itself. This way, which is also used for processions of the temple car on ceremonial occasions, is known as the Ghiri Veedhi and it is claimed as the property of the temple. It is referred to in numerous documents, dating back to 1144, as the Malaiprakaram of the temple. The Subordinate Judge states that prakaram is a Sanskrit word meaning the outer round of the temple, or fort: malai merely means hill.

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ On the whole their Lordships are of opinion

¶50

5/14

¶51

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶52

that the appellant has shown that the unoccupied portion of the hill has been in the possession of the temple from time immemorial and has been treated by the temple authorities as their property. They think that the conclusion come to by the Subordinate Judge was right and that no ground has been shown for disturbing his decree. They will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed, that the decree of the High Court dismissing the appellant's suit should be set asido and that the decree of the Subordinate Judge dated 25th August 1923, should be restored. The Secretary of State must pay the appellant's costs in the High Court and before this Board.'

¶53

b) A careful perusal of the plaint that has been presented now (second civil suit) viz., O.S.No.417 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court, Madurai, makes it clear that the plaint is predicated on the premise that the aforementioned judgment of the Privy Council has been wrongly applied by the first respondent in 09.09.202l order. This is articulated in paragraph 17 of the plaint as placed before me and the same reads as follows:

¶54

'17.It is submitted that the 3 rd defendant has not interpreted the decree passed in O.S.No.4/1920 properly and wrongly applied to the schedule mentioned property. It is submitted that the relief sought in the suit was “for declaration, injunction and recovery of possession of Thirupparakundram hill, the Giriveethi, the Sannathi Street, The sacred shines and the holy waters in the hill, with all unoccupied poromboke Thereon”

¶55

The trail court in clause 1 of the decree granted relief as follows

¶56

“That the plaintiff is the owner and has been in possession of the whole of Thirupparakundaram hill and Ghiri veedthi, excepting assessed and occupied lands , the Nellitope, including the new mantapam, the flight of steps leading from Nellitope up to the moseque and the top of the rock on which the mosque and the flag staff of the Muhammadans stand”...'

¶57

It is also to be noted that the plaint placed before me does not include the list of documents as required under Order VII Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶58

6/14

¶59

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶60

(CPC) but learned counsel submits that as many as 22 documents has been filed but that is aside of the matter.

¶61

c) Aforementioned Privy Counsel judgment was noticed by a Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforementioned order dated 23.02.2010 in W.A.(MD) No.694 of 2009 arising out of writ petitioner's challenge to 19.01.2009 SCN and the Hon'ble Division Bench very clearly held that the Privy Council has already concluded that said temple is the owner of said property. This is articulated by Hon'ble Division Bench in paragraph 7 of its order, which reads as follows:

¶62

'7. Inasmuch as the right of the land in question has already been concluded by the Privy Council that the temple is the owner of the property the petitioner will have no right over the property and there is no prohibition or impediment in taking action for removal of the encroachment as contemplated under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Therefore, without even inviting an order under Section 78(4) of the Act, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable.....'

¶63

The aforementioned excerpted portion of paragraph 7 of the order of Hon'ble Division Bench clinches the matter conclusively against the writ petitioner as the writ petitioner has accepted the above order of Hon'ble Division Bench and given complete legal quietus to the same;

¶64

d) Privy Council has come to the conclusion that the hill and the Ghiri Veedhi forming part of the Malaiprakaram belongs to the said temple and a Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforementioned excerpted paragraphs 7 has noticed the Privy Council judgment and come to the conclusion that owing to the Privy Council judgment, said temple is the owner of said property. To be noted, the aforementioned writ appeal was at the instance of the writ petitioner and the said judgment was not carried further in appeal and the writ petitioner has given complete legal quietus to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench as already alluded to supra. Therefore, all other averments in the plaint in O.S.No.417 of 2021 pertaining to purchase of said property and inter vivos transactions get completely subsumed by the Privy Council judgment. On a demurrer, all sale deeds post Privy Council https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶65

7/14

¶66

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶67

judgement (to be noted, Privy Council judgement has been clearly understood as a judgment that has conclusively decided title of said temple qua said property by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a writ appeal at the instance of this very writ petitioner) can at no stretch of imagination be the basis for a decree to establish that said temple has no title over said property. Therefore, the writ petitioner having accepted the order of Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23.02.2010 in W.A.(MD)No.694 of 2009 cannot now say that there is a suit to establish that said temple has no title over said property and that such a suit is a civil suit within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 79 of TN HR&CE Act; In this regard, the language in which sub-section (2) of section 79 of TN HR&CE Act is couched is also of significance as it does not talk about a mere title suit, but it talks about a suit to establish that a religious endowment or endowment has no title to the property. In other words, in the case on hand, it should be a suit which should establish that said temple has no title to said property. In the case on hand, the Privy Council judgment has been accepted by writ petitioner vide Division Bench order which says that suit property belongs to said temple. Therefore, writ petitioner has accepted the judicial order of a Division Bench that says (on the basis of Privy Council judgment arising out of a fully contested civil suit) that said property belongs to said temple. Therefore, the writ petitioner having accepted the Division Bench order that said property belongs to said temple can by no stretch of imagination establish in a District Court that said temple has no title over said property. A further legal aspect in this regard is vide proviso to sub section (2) of section 79 of TN HR&CE Act, a period of limitation of six months from the date of receipt of the order under section 78(4) has been prescribed as opposed to conventional title suits. The sequitur that follows is, this court is not deciding the title suit in a writ petition, but has tested whether writ petitioner satisfies the ingredients of sub section (2) of section 79 by institution of O.S.No.417 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court, Madurai.

¶68

e) The sequitur is the suit in O.S. No 417 of 2021 is clearly a non-starter. Section 79(2) of TN HR&CE Act is a provision available to a person faced with any proceedings under section 78 of TN HR&CE Act more particularly 78(4) of TN HR&CE Act, he/she can

¶69

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

¶70

8/14

¶71

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶72

institute a suit to establish that the religious institution or endowment has no title to the property concerned. In the case on hand, it is the case of the writ petitioner that O.S. No 417 of 2021 is one such a suit under section 79(2) of TN HR& CE Act. Obviously this is clearly not only a non-starter but a no argument because said property has been held to be a property of said temple vide a Privy Council judgement and this Privy Council judgement has been noticed by a Honb'le Division Bench in the writ appeal filed by the writ petitioner herself ( paragraph 7 supra) and held that the said property also forms part of Privy Council judgement which in turn means the said property belongs to said temple. In other words according to the Division Bench judgment dated 23.02.2010 in W.A.(MD)No.694 of 2009, said property belongs to said temple in view of the judgement of the Privy Council. This writ appeal as already alluded to supra was invited by the very writ petitioner and the writ petitioner has accepted / given complete quietus to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. This court sitting as a Single Bench, as matter of judicial discipline would respectfully go by the order of the Honb'le Division Bench. This is also a matter of judicial discipline. Obviously, the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai on whose file O.S.No.417 of 2021 is pending is also bound by this Division Bench order.

¶73

f) This takes us to the next point as to whether the impugned notice is under section 78(2) of TN HR & CE Act as contended by the writ petitioner. A perusal of the trajectory thus far as well as the impugned notice in the light of case file placed before me makes it clear that it is not a notice under section 78(2) of TN HR&CE Act but it is a notice under Section 79(1) TN HR&CE Act. The reason is Section 78 of TN HR&CE proceedings which was kick-started nearly one and half decades ago in February 2007 (14.02.2007 to be precise) culminated in a detailed order of the first respondent dated 09.09.2021 in M.P.No.1 of 2015. To be noted, this order is after full contest and it is seen that there are as many as 10 documents (exhibits) on the side of the petitioner and 21 documents (exhibits) on the side of the respondents. It is also seen from a perusal of the order that oral evidence has been let in and there has been extensive cross examination also though the list of witnesses has not been given at the foot of the order. This detailed order is under Section 78(4) of TN HR&CE Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, there is no question of going back to

¶74

9/14

¶75

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶76

Section 78(2) of TN HR&CE Act. This Section 78(4) order clearly gives 30 days time, the most relevant paragraphs are the two concluding paragraphs i.e, penultimate paragraph and last paragraph which read as follows:

¶77

' vdNt> ,e;J rka mwf;nfhilfs; rl;lk ;. 1959 gphpT 78(4) – d; gb Mf;fpukpg;ghsuhd vjph;kDjhuh; ,e;j cj;juT ngw;w 30 jpdq;fSf ;Fs ; jdJ Mf;fpukpg;gpid mfw;wpf ;nfhz;L jpUf;Nfhapy; trk; kDr;nrhj;jpd ; Rthj P dj ;ij xg;gilf;f cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

¶78

Nkw ; gb fhyj ; jpw ; Fs ; nrhj ; jpid xg ; gilf ; fj ; jtwpdhy ; > rk ; ge ; jg ; gl ; l nrhj ; jpy ; cs ; s Mf ; fpukpg ; Gfis rl ; lg ; gphpT 79(1)-d ; f P o ; tUtha ; Jiw kw ; Wk ; fhty ; Jiw mYtyh ; fs ; xj ; Jiog ; Gld ; mfw ; wp nrhj ; jpid jpUf ; Nfhapy ; trk ; Rthj P dk ; xg ; gilj ; J tptuk ; njhptpf ; f kJiu cjtp Mizaiu Nfl ; Lf ; nfhs ; sg ; gLfpwJ. '

¶79

g) Pursuant to the aforementioned section 78(4) order, the impugned notice has been issued {obviously under Section 79(1) of TN HR&CE Act} by the first respondent more than four months later. As already alluded to supra, the order of the first respondent was served on the writ petitioner on 27.09.2021 and the impugned notice has been served on the writ petitioner only on 12.01.2022 more than three months and half month later. Therefore, the argument of 30 days time was not given under Rule 4 of said Rules also pales into insignificance and clearly becomes a non-starter. Rule 4 makes it clear that it would only apply to notices under Sections 78(3) [besides 80 (3) and 80(2)]. Rule 4 of said Rules reads as follows:

¶80

'4. Contents of notice under sections 78 (3) and 80 (3). - (1) The notice under sections 78(3) and 80(3) of the Act shall provide 30 days time for the show cause and 15 days time for making an order under sections 78(2) and 80(2) of the Act. [The Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be], may grant such further time as he deems fit.

¶81

(2) The notice shall specify the land, or space or building or the other details covered by the encroachment proposed to be removed as specified under section 78(2) of the Act and state the boundaries, with survey numbers, if any, extent and such other relevant particulars as may be necessary to identify the land.'

¶82

That stage is all over and now the impugned notice is under Section 79(1) of TN HR&CE Act. In any event, 78 order / notice gives 30 days time and therefore, there is no infraction of said Rules.

¶83

h) This takes us to the one other collateral

¶84

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

¶85

10/14

¶86

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶87

development which needs to be recorded for completing the narrative. When 78(2) of TN HR&CE Act proceedings were kick-started, the writ petitioner came to this Court by way of writ petition vide W.P.(MD)No.15309 of 2015 which came to be disposed of on 26.08.2015 by a Hon'ble Division Bench. This was qua an issue that the second respondent in the captioned writ petition should not hear the 78 proceedings as the then incumbent of second respondent was originally Executive Officer of said temple when the proceedings were initiated. To be noted, this individual was arrayed as third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.15309 of 2015. Therefore, as a matter of good order Hon'ble Division Bench transferred the matter from the file of second respondent in the captioned writ petition to the file of the first respondent in the captioned writ petition i.e., Joint Commissioner, Sivagangai. In other words, transfer was from the file of Joint Commissioner, Madurai to Joint Commissioner, Sivagangai, who ultimately made the 09.09.2021 order which was (admittedly) served on the writ petitioner on 27.09.2021.

¶88

i) This Court took it upon itself to examine the District Court website regarding O.S.No.135 of 2007 which was on the file of Principal Sub Court Madurai and thereafter transferred to Sub Court, Tirumangalam, which was renumbered as O.S.No.1 of 2017 and which came to be withdrawn. A scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶89

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

¶90

11/14

¶91

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶92

The case file says that O.S.No.417 of 2021 is on the file of District Court without giving further details. Therefore, this Court took upon itself to go into the District Court website, downloaded status of the case from the official website of the District Court website, the same shows that the suit is now on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court. A scanned reproduction of the case status regarding O.S.No.417 of 2021 is as follows:

¶93

j) From the narrative thus far, it is clear that this purported title suit is a non-starter and the plaintiffs cannot but be non-suited in the light of judgment of Privy Council as noticed by a Hon'ble Division Bench. However I leave it to learned IV Additional District and Session Judge to complete the formalities though this Court could have called for the suit file in this writ petition itself and concluded the suit. The title of the temple qua said property has been conclusively established in a civil suit and it was noticed by a Hon'ble Division Bench and therefore it cannot be repeatedly revisited ad nauseam by way of several suits. Absent such a suit within the meaning of section 79(2) of TN HR&CE Act, the impugned notice under Section 79(1) of TN HR&CE has no basis to be interfered with. If at all, a section 78(4) order is to be assailed that should be by way of a statutory revision inter-alia under section 21 of TN HR&CE Act, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶94

12/14

¶95

WP(MD)No.851 of 2022

¶96

as already alluded to supra, TN HR&CE Act is a self contained Code and that has not been done which means section 78(4) order dated 09.09.2021 has been given legal quietus / attained finality.

¶97

k) To put it differently, 09.09.2021 section 78(4) order has attained finality, it has not been assailed within the legal perimeter of TN HR&CE Act as statutory revision lies under section 21. The purported suit has been held to be no suit denying title of religious institution (said temple) within the meaning of section 79(2). An order under section 78(4) cannot be assailed as one limb of the prayer in such a civil suit. There is clear bar in this regard qua section 108 of TN HR&CE Act.

¶98

10. In the light of the discussion and dispositive reasoning set out supra, captioned writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, captioned WMP is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶99

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶100

// True Copy //

¶101

vsm/vvk

¶102

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶103

¶104