Partly allowed

Thakkar v. R.Pandurengan

Madras HC12 Nov 2024WA(MD)/19/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Appeal filed by a temple Executive Officer. The court modified the earlier Single Judge order regarding the refund of land rent arrears, directing the respondent to pay Rs.50,050/- in six equal installments.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is allowed with the Single Judge's order modified to direct the respondent to pay Rs.50,050/- tailed portion of arrears.

Thakkar Vs R.Pandurengan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.19 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.19 of 2020

¶7

Thakkar, (The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Madurai) Arulmighu Puttu Urchava Vagaiyara Kattalai, Arulmighu Sokkanathar Thirukovil, Puttuthoppu, Madurai-625 016. ... Appellant/Respondent

¶8

¶9

R.Pandurengan

¶10

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶11

Prayer:

¶12

This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.24121 of 2019. For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.R.Aravindaraj

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

[Judgment of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.]

¶15

This Writ Appeal is filed against the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.24121 of 2019, dated 15.11.2019.

¶16

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

¶17

___________ Page 1 of 4_

¶18

W.A.(MD)No.19 of 2020

¶19

2.The respondent filed W.P.(MD)No.24121 of 2019, challenging the impugned order passed by the Executive Officer in connection with the enhancement of ground rent and consequently, direct the appellant/respondent to refix the fair rent. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 15.11.2019, found that the rent shall be in terms of Section 34(A)(2) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and since the respondent/petitioner had paid the entire arrears of rent in respect of the subject property, the writ petition was closed.

¶20

3.Aggrieved against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the temple-appellant has preferred this writ appeal.

¶21

4.On our instructions, the appellant-Executive Officer of the temple has submitted by way of affidavit that as on date, the arrears of rent are Rs.50,050/-. It remains to be stated that the refund of land rent shall be paid in accordance with Section 34(A)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Further, it is subjected to refund and hence, the order of the learned Single Judge is hereby modified to the effect that the arrears of rent in respect of the three revisional periods and the subsequent period have been submitted by the temple to be at Rs.50,050/-. The respondent/petitioner is hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,050/- in six equal installment.

¶22

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

¶23

___________ Page 2 of 4_

¶24

W.A.(MD)No.19 of 2020

¶25

5.With this modification, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. If the

¶26

respondent/Petitioner has already paid the amount, he need not repay the amount. In any event, the respondent/petitioner has not paid as stated above, it is open to the temple-appellant to proceed with in accordance with law.

¶27

[T.K.R., J.] [N.S., J.] 12.11.2024

¶28

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sji

¶29

¶30

The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

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

¶32

___________ Page 3 of 4_

¶33

W.A.(MD)No.19 of 2020

¶34

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶35

sji

¶36

W.A.(MD)No.19 of 2020

¶37

12.11.2024

¶38

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

¶39

___________ Page 4 of 4_

Thakkar v. R.Pandurengan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakkar v. R.Pandurengan

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.S.Lakshmana Kumar Vs G.Panchavarnam

D.Ramanan, Vs Amsavalli

R.Purushothaman Vs P.Janarthana

The Executive Officer, Vs a.v.Marimuthu

Jeetmal Ramesh Kumar, Vs the Commissioner

O.Seenivasan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu