The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a person claiming to be a hereditary trustee, holding that he lacked locus standi as he was not listed as a trustee nor suspended. The Court directed respondents to conduct an enquiry into alleged illegal land leases and retrieve lands if found sold/perpetually leased without permission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.16208 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.17746 of 2024
Muniraj Maragounder
... Petitioner
Versus
Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn) Department,
Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Temple Compound, Salem 636 001.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in order Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.540/2023/E1/dated 28.11.2023 and quash the same.
1/11
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
For Petitioner :: Mr.U.Gowrishankar For Respondents :: Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed calling for the records of the second respondent in order Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.540/2023/E1/dated 28.11.2023 and quash the same.
2(i). A temple name A/m.Akku Mariamman Temple at Karagoor Village, Bevuhalli, Seeriyanahalli, Palakoodu, Dharmapuri is a non-listed temple under the management of the petitioner, Marappan, Banniappan, Eswaran, Munusami, Chinnuswamy, Mare Gounder, Banni Gounder, Nanjunden, Betrayan, Range Gounder, Kannan @ Marappan, Ranga Gounder, Muniraj, Chipnnapappan @ Chena Gounder, Kathavararayan @ Varappan, Munusamy, Banni Gounder. They were administering the affairs of the said temple. As hereditary trustees, they filed an application against one Nattu Goundar @ Rajan before the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) HR & CE, Chennai to declare them and other trustees as hereditary trustees of
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
the said temple bearing O.A.No.24 of 1979. By an order dated 24.03.1980, the Deputy Commissioner declared that they are the hereditary trustees of A/m.Akku Mariamman temple. By virtue of the said order, they were managing the entire affairs in a peaceful manner. According to them, the said temple has Inam Land to an extent of 44.65 acres wet land and 08.80 acres of dry land situated at Bevuhalli, Seeriyanahalli, Palakoodu, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu 636 808. According to them, the 18 hereditary trustees were performing the poojas, cultivating the temple davadaya land and deriving income from the same for conducting annual festival. Only during the rainy season, they can do cultivation and if there is heavy rain fall, there would not be any income from the agriculture. But, they continued the right to perform poojas with their own money without any interruption. Since there was no proper rainfall and the land was dry, the land became not suitable for agriculture and hence, with the permission of the department officials of HR & CE, the tenants were allowed to build houses. The trustees were collecting the rent from the tenants. To increase the income of the temple, the HR & CE department were requested to build small houses for the tenants. The HR & CE has given NOC to the tenants to get electricity connection. On the basis of the NOC given by the Inspector
the tenants.
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
of HR & CE, the Electricity Board has also given electricity connection to the tenants.
2(ii). In the mean while, the 2nd respondent had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Marappan, Banniappan, Kannan and Eshwaran, the hereditary trustees of the A/m.Akku Mariamman temple and 8 charges were framed against them and on 28.11.2023, the interim order of suspension was issued, stating that the trustees have illegally sold the immovable properties belonging to the said temple and converting them into flats. The written reply was submitted by the aforesaid trustees on 03.01.2024. The 2nd respondent, by order dated 28.11.2023, without following due process of law, had appointed the 3rd respondent as Fit Person to the said temple, where there are hereditary trustees. The same is improper and illegal. By the said order, the 2nd respondent suspended 4 hereditary trustees. Mr.Prabhu, one of the Inspector of Department of HR & CE has not issued notice of enquiry and as a hereditary trustee, they have submitted the annual accounts of income and expenditure which are duly audited as per the HR & CE Act. All the 8 charges framed against the 4 trustees and the allegations alleging that they have sold immovable properties belonging to the temple and
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
converted them into flats are totally false and baseless. Only with a good intention to increase the income of the temple, they have built houses with their own money and agreed to give rent to the temple and with proper permission. Building houses and shops with proper permission for which electricity connection was also given, the tenants are paying rent to the temple and the entire rent amount is being credited to the bank account of the temple. Out of 44.65 acres of land, the trustees have not received any payments from the HR & CE department for performing poojas in the temple. The Inspector of HR & CE department used to tell them to stand outside the office as if they were untouchables. This being the small village temple, they are spending money from their own income and conducting festivals and when the hereditary trustees are alive, without giving them an opportunity, the Fit Person was appointed is absolutely illegal and there is
no necessity to appoint the Fit Person when the other trustees are alive. Hence, the petitioner seeks for quashing the said order of the 2nd respondent.
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
hereditary trustees. When they had a revision, it was found that there was no proper maintenance of the temple accounts and there were administrative arrears and the same was pointed out by the Deputy Commissioner and accordingly, one Marappan appeared and he also already stated that they have already sold certain lands to third parties. It is also further seen that out of 56.15 acres of lands available to the temple, they have constructed 34 houses and shops were constructed by third parties and there was no such permission given to them by the Inspector. Out of the 18 persons appointed as hereditary trustees, only 14 persons are alive and among them, only 4 persons are performing duties of the trustees. According to them, those trustees have sold the properties and they have also given an undertaking that they will not sell the property, but still they have continued the said act and have sold the lands to 34 persons, of which 24 houses and 10 shops are built, which was found in an inspection held on 05.04.2022. Rest of the 49.17 acres of punja land has not been given for auction and the same has been making loss to the temple's income and eviction of the encroachment has not been effected by the hereditary trustees. Accordingly, they held an enquiry on 12.09.2022, to which only K.P.Banniappan, one of the hereditary trustee alone appeared and given an explanation and others have not
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
appeared. K.P.Marappan, M.Marappan and Eswaran entered appearance for
the enquiry held on 26.09.2022 and as Eswaran left the enquiry in the middle, K.P.Marappan and Kannan had given a statement. As per the same, they could find that the said lands have been sold to third parties. Further, there were certain lands acquired by the Government and the hereditary trustees have not informed the authorities to file a petition to withdraw the amounts deposited to the Court, even after 12 years have gone. They are not maintaining the accounts for the said temple. In view of the above said facts, they have passed an order of suspending 4 persons viz., Marappan, Banniappan, Kannan and Eshwaran as per Section 53 of the Act and they have also appointed the Fit Person, the Executive Officer of A/m.Tirumaaidever Temple, Panchavalli Village, Paalakodu, Dharmapuri. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Government Advocate also produced some documents which has been
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
termed as “rh!;tj Fj;jifg; gj;jpuk;” which has been executed on 24.10.2016
termed as “rh!;tj Fj;jifg; gj;jpuk;” which has been executed on 24.10.2016
by K.B.Bannippan, who has received Rs.25,000/- and even though it is stated as lease deed, it talks about giving the entire possession and rights to the said person, wherein it has been found as follows:
“24/10/2016e; njjpay; jUkg[hp khtl;lk; ghyf;nfhL tl;lk; ngt[ms;sp jug;g[ fuTh; fpuhkj;jpy; trpf;Fk; tptrha $Ptdk; G.kzp kidtp ee;jpdp Mfpa c';fSf;F.
jUkg[hp khtl;lk; ghyf;nfhL tl;lk; ngt[ms;sp jug;g[ fuTh; fpuhkj;jpy; trpf;Fk; ngh/ngl;uhaft[z;lh; Fkhuh; K.B.gd;dpag;gd; Mfpa ehd; vGjpf; bfhLj;j rh!;tj Fj;jifg; gj;jpuk; vg;go vd;why;:-
,g;gt[k; mUs;kpF _mf;Fkhhpak;kd; nfhtpYf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l fPH;fz;l kid$hfhtpid ehd; rPh;jpUj;jk; bra;j tifapy; Vw;gl;l brytpw;fhf ntz;o c';fSf;F rh!;tj Fj;jiff;F bfhLj;J c';fsplkpUe;J bkhj;j bjhifahf U:/25.000-? U:gha; ,Ugj;ije;jhapuk; g{uhita[k; fPH;f;fz;l rhl;rpfs; Kd;dpiyapy; buhf;fkha;g; bgw;Wf;bfhz;L. fPH;fz;l kid $hfhtpid ,d;nw c';fspl KGikahd RthjPd mDgtj;jpYk; tpl;Ltpl;nld;/
,dp fPH;fz;l brhj;Jf;Fk; vdf;Fk; vd;dpl ntWvj;jd;ikahd Kd;gpd; thhpRjhuh;fSf;Fk; ahbjhUtpj ghj;jpark;ke;jKk; gpd; bjhlh;r;rpa[k; mwnt fpilahJ/
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
fPH;fz;l kid$hfhtpid jh';fs; ,e;J rka mwf;fl;lisapd; rl;ljpl;l';fSf;F fl;Lg;gl;L mDgtpj;Jf; bfhs;sntz;oaJ vd;W vd;dpl rk;kjpapy; vGjpf;bfhLj;j rh!;tj Fj;jifg;gj;jpuk; rhp/”
Without even getting permission, they have written such document in favour of third parties. Learned Government Advocate also would submit that the said petitioner herein was not declared as a hereditary trustee, but it is seen that the petitioner's father was also trustee and the petitioner's name also finds part in the list of plaintiffs as Serial No.14.Muni Raj. It was submitted that the said Muni Raj is a different person and that the petitioner is alleging that he is the said Muni Raj, for which he has to produce appropriate document to show that he was one of the petitioners in O.A.No.24 of 1979. It is also seen that the petitioner has got no right to file such Writ Petition. If at all they are aggrieved, they have to go file an appeal as per the Act and they cannot come and approach this Court by way of filing this Writ Petition. It is also seen that the documents produced would show that the petitioner is claiming right for all the persons when he has not been suspended. He challenges to quash the said order passed by the authorities wherein 4 persons were suspended and in the affidavit also it has
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
been stated that he is also challenging the said order of suspension and the petitioner has not got any such right. If at all any person is aggrieved, he can go and approach the authorities in the manner known to law. This Writ Petition is dismissed. After dictating the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is restricting his prayer only to consider his representation alone. For that, the petitioner has got to approach the concerned authorities as per the Act and proceed in the manner known to law. This Writ Petition cannot be sustained. The respondent is hereby directed to proceed further by conducting an enquiry and if it is found after perusing the documents available wherein the lands have been sold or given in perpetual lease for any other third parties, the respondents are hereby directed to retrieve the said lands by proceeding in the manner before whichever forum by filing appropriate petitions.
16.07.2024
Index : Yes/No gsa
W.P.No.16208 of 2024
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
gsa
To
2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn) Department, Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Temple Compound, Salem 636 001.
W.P.No.16208 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.17746 of 2024
16.07.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the suspension order when he was not among the suspended trustees.
Whether the appointment of a Fit Person and suspension of hereditary trustees without due process is sustainable.
Whether the petitioner should have approached the appellate authorities under the HR & CE Act instead of filing a writ petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Muniraj Maragounder
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn) Department
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn) Department
Fit Person/The Executive Office, Arulmigu Tirumaaidever Temple
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
