Disposed

M.Satishkumar v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC7 Jun 2023WP/959/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three Writ Petitions challenging a public auction notice regarding temple land occupied by petitioners. The High Court held adjudication unnecessary as pending revision petitions before the Chief Executive Officer provide sufficient remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petitions closed. Petitioners granted liberty to pursue remedy in pending revision petitions before the 1st Respondent if aggrieved.

M.Satishkumar Vs The Principal Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.06.2023

¶4

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020 and WMP.Nos.1170, 1172 & 1175 of 2020

¶6

M.Satishkumar ...Petitioner in W.P.No.959 of 2020 Suresh ...Petitioner in W.P.No.961 of 2020 J.Janbasha ...Petitioner in W.P.No.964 of 2020

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Principal Secretary to Government, Tamil Culture and Religious Endowment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

The Commissioner,

¶10

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶11

The Joint Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Salem - 636 001.

¶13

Assistant Commissioner,

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dharmapuri - 636 701.

¶15

Fit Person / Executive Officer, A/m. Karaga Samundiamman Temple, Krishnagiri - 635 001. ...Respondents in all W.P's

¶16

Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶17

1/8

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020

¶20

India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the republic auction/tender notice issued by the fifth respondent and published in the Salem Edition of the Daily Thanthi News Paper on 08.01.2020, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, and to quash the same.

¶21

In all W.P's.:

¶22

For Petitioners : Ms.G.Sumitra

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, GA (HR &CE)

¶24

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶25

Since the issue involved in all these Writ petitions are similar in

¶26

nature, they are disposed of by way of this common order.

¶27

These Writ petitions have been filed seeking quashment of the re-

¶28

public auction/tender notice issued by the 5^th respondent dated 08.01.2020, in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

¶29

The case of the petitioners is that, the petitioners are in occupation

¶30

of the land owned by the 4^th respondent temple comprised in S.No.11/7, situated at Chennai Salai, Krishnagiri and are running their own business for

¶31

the past several years. While so, upon receipt of the notice of the 5^th

¶32

2/8

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020

¶35

respondent dated 11.04.2014, followed by the show cause notice dated 05.10.2014 issued by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioners came to know that,

¶36

the 5^th respondent temple comes under the control of the HR & CE Department and the subject land which the petitioners are in possession belongs to the 5^th respondent. Upon receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioners sent their replies, however, without considering the same, the

¶37

3^rd respondent passed an order dated 30.11.2016, holding that, the petitioners are encroachers and directed to surrender the vacant possession of the subject land. Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioners and other occupants filed Revision petitions before the 2^nd respondent and all the revision petitions were heard jointly and a common order dated 03.07.2017 came to be passed, fixing rent as per Section 34A of the Tamilnadu H.R. & C.E. Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners and other occupants filed Writ petitions and this Court granted permission to the petitioners and other occupants to file appropriate revision on condition that, the petitioners and other occupants pay 50% of the total demand, including the arrears. While so, demand notices were came to be issued directing the petitioners and other occupants to pay the amount as per the order dated 03.07.2017. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioners and other occupants paid 3/8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020

¶40

the arrears of rent to the 5^th respondent and preferred Revision petitions under Section 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act before the 1^st respondent and the same is pending. In such circumstances, the 5^th respondent issued a public notice by way of publication in local new paper on 08.01.2020, calling for public auction cum tender in respect of various extents of subject land comprised in S.No.11/7, belonging to the temple. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come up with these Writ petitions.

¶41

Though very many grounds have been raised, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the order of the 3^rd respondent dated 30.11.2016 holding that, the petitioners are encroachers and directing to surrender the vacant possession of the subject land was challenged by the petitioners and other occupants before the 2^nd respondent, who in turn passed an order dated 03.07.2017, fixing rent as per Section 34A of the above said Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed revision petitions before the 1^st respondent herein, who in turn heard the parties and reserved for orders. Hence, she submitted that, it would suffice if this Court grants liberty to the petitioners to workout the remedy in the manner know 4/8

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020

¶44

to law, if they are aggrieved by the orders to be passed by the 1^st respondent

¶45

in the respective revision petitions.

¶46

In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for

¶47

the petitioners, this Court is of the view that no further adjudication is necessary in these Writ petitions. However, the petitioners are at liberty to workout their remedy in the manner known to law, if so aggrieved by the orders to be passed by the 1^st respondent in the respective revision petitions.

¶48

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand closed. No costs.

¶49

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

07.06.2023

(1/3)

skt

NCC : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶54

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

¶55

5/8

¶56

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020

¶57

¶58

The Principal Secretary to Government, Tamil Culture and Religious Endowment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶59

The Commissioner,

¶60

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶61

The Joint Commissioner,

¶62

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Salem - 636 001.

¶63

Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dharmapuri - 636 701.

¶64

Fit Person / Executive Officer, A/m. Karaga Samundiamman Temple, Krishnagiri - 635 001.

¶65

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

¶66

6/8

¶67

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020

¶68

M.DHANDAPANI., J.

¶69

skt

¶70

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020 and WMP.Nos.1170, 1172 & 1175 of 2020 (1/3)

¶71

07.06.2023

¶72

7/8

¶73

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

¶74

W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020

¶75

WMP.Nos.1168, 1171 & 1173 of 2020 in W.P.Nos.959, 961 & 964 of 2020

¶76

M.DHANDAPANI., J.

¶77

Dispense with ordered for the

present.

07.06.2023 (2/3)

skt

8/8

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

M.Satishkumar v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Satishkumar v. The Principal Secretary to Government

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

P.Murugesan Vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board

M/s.Anukraga Property Hire Vs The Superintending Engineer

S.Dhandapani, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

D.Balasubramanian Vs The General Manager

M.Jegan Vs The District Collector

R.Ravi Vs The Commissioner