Disposed

A.Govindan v. The Joint Commissioner/

Madras HC4 Sept 2024WP/30656/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged notices issued under Section 78(1) of the HR&CE Act terminating their possession of temple land. The court avoided interfering with the order, permitted initiating proceedings within two weeks, and directed the Joint Commissioner to consider objections pass orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Court permitted Joint Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 78; granted liberty to petitioners to file objections; directed appellate authority to pass orders within 12 weeks.

A.Govindan Vs The Joint Commissioner/ — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.30656 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.30656 of 2015 And M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

¶7

1.A.Govindan

¶8

2.A.Alamelu 3.K.Balan 4.A.Kundalakesi 5.S.Durga 6.E.Pachaiammal 7.V.Narasimalu 8.S.Saraswathi 9.S.Padmini 10.N.Dhanapal 11.K.Paneerselvam 12.M.Kanchana 13.P.Bobby 14.C.Shanmugam 15.Manigandan 16.K.Venu ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer Arulmigu Arunachaleswar Thiru Koil Thiruvannamalai.

¶11

2.Arulmigu Arunachaleswar Thiru Koil Rep. by its Fit Person Cum Executive Officer Thiruvannamalai. ... Respondents

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.30656 of 2015

¶15

Prayer:

¶16

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents pertaining to notice V.A.No.138/S.K.T.A/2015 dated 11.09.2015 published on 12.09.2015 in the Tamil News Paper Dina Thanthi and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession of their respective properties in Polur Road, 7th Street, Tiruvannamalai or evicting them pursuant to the impugned notice dated 11.09.2015.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.Richardson Wilson for M/s.P.Wilson Associates

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravichandran for R1 Additional Government Pleader(HR&CE) Mr.Wilson for R2 for M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking issuance of

¶21

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents pertaining to notice V.A.No.138/S.K.T.A/2015 dated 11.09.2015 published on 12.09.2015 in the Tamil News Paper Dina Thanthi and quash the same and consequently forbear the

¶22

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

¶23

2/6

¶24

W.P.No.30656 of 2015

¶25

respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession of their respective properties in Polur Road, 7th Street, Tiruvannamalai or evicting them pursuant to the impugned notice dated 11.09.2015.

¶26

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in occupation of different extent of the lands in Polur Road, 7th Street, Tiruvannamalai, which originally belonged to Arulmigu Arunachaleswar Thiru Koil Trust Board. The second respondent during the year 1974 divided the subject property and offered individual plots for a sale consideration of Rs.400/- each to be paid in two installments and the petitioners paid the first installment and the second respondent also accepted and collected the same and the petitioners were also issued with Arunachalapuram Veetumanai Urimai Attai, however, thereafter the second respondent did not collect the second installment and all of a sudden the respondents issued notices dated 16.07.2015 to the petitioners under Section 78 (1) of the HR&CE Act terming the petitioners as encroachers.

¶27

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further

¶28

submitted that the notices dated 16.07.2015 were challenged before

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.30656 of 2015

¶32

this Court in W.P.No.25616 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 18.08.2015 disposed of the writ petition by holding that the notices were only intimations and that the petitioners could not be evicted on

¶33

the basis of the same. Thereafter the respondents issued the impugned notice, wherein, the respondents once again termed the petitioners as encroachers and called upon the petitioners to show cause why they could not be evicted, which is not sustainable one.

¶34

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader (HR&CE) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the impugned notice is only a show cause notice and not eviction notice issued under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act and further submitted that the eviction notice is to be issued only by the Joint Commissioner and further submitted that this Court, without interfering with the impugned order, may issue direction to the Joint Commissioner, Thiruvannamalai, to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act and grant liberty to the petitioners to file their objections and issue further direction to the Joint Commissioner to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time frame.

¶35

5.Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.30656 of 2015

¶39

without interfering with the impugned order, permits the Joint Commissioner, Thiruvannamalai, to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act, if so desired, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such proceedings is initiated, the petitioners shall file their objections, within a period of two weeks thereafter. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner shall conduct inspection along with the petitioners and Temple Authorities and consider the objections filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. Further liberty is granted to the petitioners to canvass all the points before the Joint Commissioner.

¶40

6.This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶41

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

04.09.2024

¶43

pri

¶44

Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No

¶45

¶46

1.The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer Arulmigu Arunachaleswar Thiru Koil

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.30656 of 2015

¶50

Thiruvannamalai.

¶51

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

¶52

W.P.No.30656 of 2015 And M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

¶53

6/6

¶54

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

W.P.No.30656 of 2015

04.09.2024

7/6

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

A.Govindan v. The Joint Commissioner/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Govindan v. The Joint 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

S.Karthikeyan Vs the State Bank of India

L.Ramaseshan Vs The Superintending

Icic Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs the Taluk Legal Service Committee

Sri Govindha Yathiraaja Jeeyar Vs the Commissioner

S.Thangayammal, Vs The Commissioner

G.Rajmohan Vs The Commissioner