Dismissed

M.Padmavathi v. the Commissioner

Madras HC9 Aug 2024WP/23448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by inamdars against HR&CE authorities. The court directed the first respondent to decide pending revision petitions within four months and restrained the other respondents from taking coercive action to dispossess the petitioners until such decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to dispose revision petitions within four months; conditional restraint on respondents from taking coercive action to dispossess petitioners.

M.Padmavathi Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.23448 of 2024 etc.,

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.Nos.23448, 23452, 23453, 23455 to 23457 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.25617, 25622, 25623, 25625, 25627 and 25628 of 2024

¶9

Prayer in W.P.No.23448 of 2024

¶10

1.M.Padmavathi

¶11

2.Yasudha

¶12

3.Sasipriya

¶13

4.Ganeshraam

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

The Commissioner,

¶17

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Admin Department, Uthmar Gandhi Salai,

¶18

Nungambakkam,

¶19

Chennai-600 034.

¶20

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶21

HR & CE Department, Tirupur Division,

¶22

Room No.12, New Commercial Complex,

¶23

Cotton Market Complex,

¶24

Palladam Road, Tirupur-641 604.

¶25

Page 1 of 8

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.23448 of 2024 etc.,

¶28

3.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Tirupur Division, A/M Veeraragava Perumal Kovil Street, Near Old Bus Stand, Tirupur-641 604.

¶29

4.Arulmighu Angalamman Temple, Represented by its Managing Trustee, Palladam Nagar, Tirupur Taluk and District-641 664.

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 2 to 4 from taking any coercive action to dispossess the petitioners from the property measuring to an extent of 4410 sq.ft. comprised in S.No.334/1I, Palladam Nagar and Taluk, Tirupur District, till the disposal of the revision petition in R.P.No.305 of 2024 pending with the first respondent filed against the order dated 26.12.2023 of the second respondent made in M.P.No.107 of 2022.

¶32

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth For Respondents : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)

¶33

_________ Page 2 of 8

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.23448 of 2024 etc.,

¶36

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶37

Since the issues raised in these writ petitions are one and the

¶38

same, this Court is inclined to dispose of these Writ Petitions by way of a common order.

¶39

These Writ Petitions have been filed to forbear the

¶40

respondents 2 to 4 from taking any coercive action to dispossess the petitioners from the properties comprised in S.Nos.334/1I, 334/1A26, 334/1A28, 334/1A29, 334/1C, Palladam Nagar and Taluk, Tirupur District, till the disposal of the revision petitions in R.P.Nos.300 to 305 of 2024 pending with the first respondent filed against the orders dated 26.12.2023 and 14.11.2023 of the second respondent made in M.P.Nos.97, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 107 of 2022.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are inamdars and is in occupation of the subject lands which

¶42

_________ Page 3 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.23448 of 2024 etc.,

¶45

was disputed by the respondents/Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, and therefore, the petitioners have filed suits in O.S.Nos.40, 55, 85, 6 and 46 of 2022 before the learned Sub Judge, Palladam and the same are pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, the second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act against the petitioners for evicting them. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have filed the revision petitions before the first respondent in R.P.Nos.300 to 305 of 2024 and the same are pending. Pending revision petitions, the respondents are trying to take coercive steps to evict the petitioners. However, the learned counsel submits that it would suffice if this Court directs the first respondent to dispose of the revision petitions filed by the petitioners within a reasonable time and till such time, the respondents may be directed not to take coercive action with regard to occupation of the petitioner.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that

¶47

the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners before the first respondent

¶48

_________ Page 4 of 8

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.23448 of 2024 etc.,

¶51

will be disposed of within a period of four months and till such time, the respondents will not take any coercive steps against the petitioners. Unless the petitioners obtain interim order in the suits pending before the trial Court, there is no bar for the respondents to take action against the petitioner.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) appearing for the respondents.

¶53

In view of the submissions made by both sides, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners in R.P.Nos.300 to 305 of 2024, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps against the writ petitioners.

¶54

_________ Page 5 of 8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.23448 of 2024 etc.,

¶57

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall

¶58

be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶59

09.08.2024 (1/3)

¶60

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

¶61

Page 6 of 8

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.No.23448 of 2024 etc.,

¶64

¶65

The Commissioner,

¶66

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Admin Department, Uthmar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶67

2.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Tirupur Division, Room No.12, New Commercial Complex, Cotton Market Complex, Palladam Road, Tirupur-641 604.

¶68

3.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Tirupur Division, A/M Veeraragava Perumal Kovil Street, Near Old Bus Stand, Tirupur-641 604.

¶69

4.Arulmighu Angalamman Temple, Represented by its Managing Trustee, Palladam Nagar, Tirupur Taluk and District-641 664.

¶70

Page 7 of 8

¶71

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

¶72

W.P.No.23448 of 2024 etc.,

¶73

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶74

ssb

¶75

W.P.No.23448 of 2024 etc.,

¶76

09.08.2024 (1/3)

¶77

_________ Page 8 of 8

¶78

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

M.Padmavathi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Padmavathi v. the Commissioner

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

V.S.Kumar Vs the Superintending Engineer

V.Devi Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Manimaran Irsme Vs Union of India represented by Ministry of Railways

P.Gnanasekar Vs The Authorised officer

M.Padmavathi Vs the Commissioner

M.Padmavathi Vs the Commissioner