Disposed

V.Venkatesan v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Nov 2024WP/10014/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to remove temple encroachment. The Court directed the appointed trustee to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of TN HRCE Act, ensuring an opportunity for the alleged encroacher.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by directing the appointed trustee to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of TN HRCE Act with opportunity to the alleged encroacher.

V.Venkatesan Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

V.Venkatesan

... Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai – 632 009.

¶12

2.The Thasildar, Alandur Taluk,

¶13

Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

¶14

3.The Commissioner,

¶15

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

¶16

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶17

4.The Trustee, Arulmighu Prasanna Vinayagar Temple, Mannapakkam, Chennai – 600 125.

¶18

5.M/s. Casa Grande Private Limited, Rep. By its Manager M.Arun Kumar, No.111, 5^th Floor, NPL Devi LB Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041.

¶19

Page Nos.1/10

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶22

6.The Joint Commissioner (II), Division – 2, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 4.

¶23

7.The Assistant Commissioner, Division – 2, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 4. ... Respondents

¶24

(R6 and R7 suo motu impleaded vide order dated 05.11.2024 in W.P.No.10014 of 2021)

¶25

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to initiate action to remove the encroachment committed by the 5^th respondent as per law on the landed property in S.No.424 and other adjacent land belonging to the Arulmighu Prasanna Vinayagar Temple, Manapakkam, Alandur Taluk, Chennai District forthwith.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sarath Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, Government Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) for R3, R4 and R6

¶27

Page Nos.2/10

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶30

ORDER

¶31

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J .,]

¶32

Captioned 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) pertains to land said to be belonging to a temple which goes by the name 'Arulmighu Prasanna Vinayagar temple'. This temple is situate in Manapakkam, Alandur Taluk, Chennai District and it shall be referred to as 'said temple'.

¶33

Mr.M.Sarath Kumar, learned counsel for writ petitioner is before us. Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner has sent a representation dated 11.08.2020 to R1 and R2 regarding alleged encroachment by R5. A scanned reproduction of this representation is as follows:

¶34

Page Nos.3/10

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶37

Page Nos.4/10

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶40

As regards locus, 'person having interest' is defined in sub-

¶41

section (15) of Section 6 of ' The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959)' [hereinafter 'TN

¶42

Page Nos.5/10

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶45

HR & CE Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. There is no averment in the support affidavit which satisfies the ingredients of 'person having interest' though there is a reference to Section 6(15) in paragraph 3. However, we do not intend to delve further into this aspect of the matter as Court is parens patriae qua idol which is in the status of a minor and Court is also custodia legis qua temple property. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we take up the captioned WP.

¶46

Issue notice to respondents. Mr.M.S.Arasa Kumar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R1 and R2. Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) accepts notice for R3 and R4.

¶47

Learned State counsel, more particularly HR & CE counsel submits that steps are underway to appoint a Fit Person qua said temple which means the Fit Person will qualify as a trustee as AND when appointed and as far as this order is concerned it will suffice to say that there is no R4 as of today.

¶48

Section 78 of TN HR & CE Act provides for removal of

¶49

encroachment and it shall be the duty of TN HR & CE D epartment to

¶50

Page Nos.6/10

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶53

be so.

¶54

look into the matter and initiate proceedings under Section 78 if that be so.

¶55

Considering the narrow scope of the captioned WP and as the rights and contentions of R5 can be protected (R5 will be given an opportunity in Section 78 proceedings), captioned main WP is taken up with the consent of both sides in the Admission Board itself.

¶56

Fit person on being appointed (R4) shall consider the aforementioned 11.08.2020 representation and do all that is necessary to kick start proceedings under Section 78 of TN HR & CE Act. In the proceedings, though obvious, we make it clear that R5 which is the alleged encroacher will be given an opportunity as per law. Therefore, this is the safety valve we are putting in with regard to R5 and we make it clear that captioned main WP is being disposed of inter-alia owing to this safety valve. We also make it clear that we are not expressing any view or opinion on alleged encroachment by R5. Though obvious we add that this will be in the domain of Section 78 legal drill.

¶57

Page Nos.7/10

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶60

Now, it is for R4 to kick start proceedings under Section 78 of TN HR & CE Act and it is for the TN HR & CE De partment to ensure that the proceedings are concluded as expeditiously as the business of all concerned would permit. We make it clear that jurisdictional Joint Commissioner, TN HR & CE Department is the authority vested with power under Section 78 and jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of TN HR & CE Department has to submit a report. Therefore, we have suo motu impleaded Joint Commissioner (II), Division – 2, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 4 and jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Division – 2, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 4 as R6 and R7 respectively and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) accepts notice for R6 and R7 also.

¶61

Besides R5, if there are any other alleged encroachers, it is

¶62

open to the authorities to kick start Section 78 proceedings against such entities/persons also and they shall also be given an opportunity in the Section 78 proceedings.

¶63

Captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There

¶64

Page Nos.8/10

¶65

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

¶66

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶67

shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 05.11.2024

¶69

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No mmi

¶70

¶71

1.The District Collector, Chennai District, Chennai – 632 009.

¶72

2.The Thasildar,

¶73

Alandur Taluk, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

¶74

3.The Commissioner,

¶75

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

¶76

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶77

4.The Trustee, Arulmighu Prasanna Vinayagar Temple, Mannapakkam, Chennai – 600 125.

¶78

5.The Joint Commissioner (II), Division – 2, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 4.

¶79

6.The Assistant Commissioner, Division – 2, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 4.

¶80

M.SUNDAR, J., and

¶81

Page Nos.9/10

¶82

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

¶83

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶84

K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶85

mmi

¶86

W.P.No.10014 of 2021

¶87

05.11.2024

¶88

Page Nos.10/10

¶89

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

V.Venkatesan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Venkatesan v. The District Collector

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

G.Malarkodi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Muthulakshmi Vs The District Collector

S.Subash Vs The District Collector

A.Heera Vs The District Collector

V.Ganesh Vs The Principal Secretary To governemnt

R.Ghanshyam Vs The Commissioner