Dismissed

T.Elayaraja v. The Commissioner of Hr and Ce

Madras HC12 Nov 2024WP/8784/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A claimed lessee of temple agricultural land sought a mandamus restraining respondents from dispossessing him or constructing on survey numbers 2/8 and 2/9 in Kottaiyur Village. Finding no lease agreement produced and tenancy a disputed question of fact unfit for writ proceedings, the High Court dismissed the petition with liberty to approach the competent forum.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

T.Elayaraja Vs The Commissioner of Hr and Ce — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.8784 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.8784 of 2020 and WMP.No.10660 of 2020

¶7

T. Elayaraja .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Commissioner of HR & CE,

¶10

Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.

¶11

The District Collector, Tiruvarur District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Valangaiman Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

¶13

The Block Development Officer, Valangaiman Panchayat Union, Tiruvarur District.

¶14

The President / Executive Authority, Kottaiyur Village Panchayat, Valangaiman Taluk,

¶15

Tiruvarur District.

¶16

A/m Adhimeeswarar @ Agastheeswarar Temple, Rep. by its Fit Person, Kottaiyur, Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur District.

¶17

K.Mathi

¶18

K.Selvam

¶19

U.Alagan

¶20

S.Ramachandran

¶21

S.Kannan ...Respondents

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶23

1/5

¶24

W.P.No.8784 of 2020

¶25

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

¶26

issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 to 11 and their men subordinates or any other persons/ officials claiming right through them, from dispossessing me from the land comprised survey numbers 2/8 and 2/9 in Kottayur Village in Valangaiman Taluk, Tiruvarur District by making any construction or in any other manner.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Neelakandan For R1 : Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate For R2 to R5 : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, Additional Government Pleader For R6 : Mr.R.Bharaidharan

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioner herein seeks a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the

¶30

respondents 2 to 11 from dispossessing him from the land comprised in survey numbers 2/8 and 2/9 in Kottayur Village in Valangaiman Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the lessee of the agricultural land comprised in the above mentioned survey Nos. 2/8 and 2/9 belonged to the fifth respondent temple. The respondents 7 to 11, at the

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶33

W.P.No.8784 of 2020

¶34

instigation of the other respondents, attempted to put up construction in the lessee hold lands of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with the above mentioned prayer.

¶35

The sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the subject property was given to the service holder of the temple and when the land was sought to be utilised for constructing a overhead tank, the service holder has handed over the portion of the land to the temple. While so, the petitioner, claiming himself to be the lessee had objected to the construction of the overhead temple and also filed the present writ petition. It is also stated by 6th respondent that there is no valid approved lease with the petitioner.

¶36

The petitioner has not produced any materials show under whom he is a lessee or tenant. He has also not produced lease agreement with temple. Though, the petitioner produced a certificate from VAO describing the petitioner as a tenant, in the absence of any material to show that there was lease agreement between the petitioner and the sixth respondent temple, the objection put forth by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. Whether the petitioner is a lessee under the sixth respondent or not is a

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶38

W.P.No.8784 of 2020

¶39

disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in this writ

¶40

petition. It is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent forum in a manner known to law. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

12.11.2024

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

The Commissioner of HR & CE, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.

¶45

The District Collector, Tiruvarur District.

¶46

The Tahsildar, Valangaiman Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

¶47

The Block Development Officer, Valangaiman Panchayat Union, Tiruvarur District.

¶48

The President / Executive Authority, Kottaiyur Village Panchayat, Valangaiman Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

¶49

A/m Adhimeeswarar @ Agastheeswarar Temple, Rep. by its Fit Person, Kottaiyur, Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur District.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

4/5

W.P.No.8784 of 2020

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P No.8784 of 2020

12.11.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

T.Elayaraja v. The Commissioner of Hr and Ce

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Elayaraja v. The Commissioner of Hr and Ce

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

D.Murugan Vs The Sub Collector

Maruthachalam Easwaramoorthi Vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Musthafa.a Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Association of Management of Coimbatore Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority

Perur a/M. Pattieswarar Thirukoil Kuthaigai vivasaigal Vs State of Tamil Nadu

The Union of India, Vs Pondicherry Non Banking