Dismissed

Sri Kasiviswanathar Temple v. Hindu Religious & Charitable

Madras HC2 Jan 2023WP/23954/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a hereditary trustee challenging an order regarding temple land auction. The petition was held infructuous as the trustee had died before the hearing, and legal heirs had not been recognized by authorities.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous; No costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Sri Kasiviswanathar Temple Vs Hindu Religious & Charitable — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.23954 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No. 23954 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶7

Sri Kasiviswanathar Temple Velur Rep by its Heriditary Trustee Easwara Sundaram S/o.V.K.Eswara Iyer 18, Agraharam, Paramathi Velur Namakkal .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Rep by The Commissioner Nungammbakkam Chennai – 600 034

¶10

2.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Salem – 1 .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the second respondent pertaining to his proceedings in br/K/el/e/f/vz;/9805-2009-M2 dated 16.09.2010, quash the same.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.23954 of 2010

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vijayakumar Change of Vakalat not filed

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.Rajendran

¶17

Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed by the Hereditary Trustee of the

¶20

petitioner temple challenging the order of the second respondent made in

¶21

br/K/el/e/f/vz;/9805-2009-M2 dated 16.09.2010, calling for auctioning

¶22

the subject land for the purpose of lease from the general public.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that the entire subject property is managed by the Hereditary Trustee, since the temple is an excepted temple from the Respondent Department. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be passed by the Respondent Authority.

¶24

Today, when the case was taken up, Mr. B.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appeared before this Court without filing any Vakalat submitted that the person who had filed this writ petition had died, hence, seeks time to implead the legal heirs. Though the said representation is made before this Court and no Vakalat has been filed to represent this matter.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.23954 of 2010

¶28

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that as the Hereditary Trustee has already died, unless and until, the legal heirs have been recognized by the respondent authorities, the present writ petition is nothing but only an academic and have become infructuous.

¶29

Hence, these writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

02.01.2023

¶31

dhk Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No To

¶32

The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department No.119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai Chennai - 34

¶33

2.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Salem – 1

¶34

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶35

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

3/4

W.P.No.23954 of 2010

dhk

W.P.No.23954 of 2010

02.01.2023

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

¶42

4/4

Sri Kasiviswanathar Temple v. Hindu Religious & Charitable

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kasiviswanathar Temple v. Hindu Religious & Charitable

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

Arulmigu Thiruvalleeswarar Vs The Commissioner

Andimadam Village Panchayat Vs The Principal Secretary to

Siddarth Galada, Vs The Commissioner

M.Narashiman, Vs the Commissioner

Mohamed Sadiq Basha Vs The District Collector

A.Saravanan, Vs The District Collector-cum-