Dismissed

Thangammal N v. The Joint Commissioner cum Executive Officer

Madras HC20 Sept 2024WP(MD)/19842/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking an injunction against eviction from a shop alleged to be encroached temple land. The Court refused the prayer primarily because the petitioner failed to file an undertaking affidavit confirming the absence of commercial activities in the property, citing prior precedents prohibiting commerce in the G

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying for forbearance of eviction was dismissed. Liberty to approach the Appellate Authority/DRO was granted.

Thangammal N Vs The Joint Commissioner… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19842 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19842 of 2024 WMP(MD)Nos.16816 of 2024 & 16817 of 2024

Thangammal N.

.. Petitioner

vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶12

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶13

4.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶14

5.The Inspector of Police, Palani, Dindigul District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.19842 of 2024

¶18

praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from dispossessing and evicting from the petitioner's shop situated at T.S.No.863 with an extent of 1772 Sq.feet at Block No.20, Ward No.3, Palkavadi Madam, Adivaram, Palani, Dindigul District, which is a patta land over which the respondents 1 and 2 under the guise of encroachment of temple land without any jurisdiction that too without even following due process of law.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam, for Mr.B.Sargunam

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.R.Bharanidaran for R1 and R2 Mr.Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Additional Govt. Pleader for R3 & R4 Mr.T.Senthilkumar for R5

¶21

ORDER

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACJ. ]

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from dispossessing and evicting from the petitioner's shop situated at T.S.No.863 with an extent of 1772 Sq.feet at Block No.20, Ward No.3, Palkavadi Madam, Adivaram, Palani, Dindigul District, which is a patta land over which the respondents 1 and 2 under the guise of encroachment of temple land without any jurisdiction that too without even following due process of law.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.19842 of 2024

¶27

During the last hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that the petitioner is not doing any commercial activities in the property in question and also undertakes to file an affidavit to that effect. Today when the matter is called, the petitioner has not filed any undertaking affidavit before this Court.

¶28

A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.17889, 18047 to 18049 and 19393 to 19394 of 2013 dated 10.02.2014 has prohibited commercial activities in the mountain path and it is not open to any authority, be it a Devasthanam Board or the Government or the District Administration or the Local Body to grant permission for carrying out any commercial activity in the Giriveedhi. This Court has also reiterated the same in its various earlier orders passed in Cont.P.(MD) No.1671 of 2018. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. This Court has disposed of the other writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.17849 of 2022 with liberty to approach the DRO and to agitate all the grounds before the Appellate Authority.

¶29

In such circumstances, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. It is made

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.19842 of 2024

¶33

clear that subject to the outcome of the order passed on the appeal before the Appellate Authority / DRO, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

¶34

(D.K.K., ACJ.) (R.V., J.) 20.09.2024 Intex : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Jvm

¶35

¶36

1.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶37

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶38

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶39

4.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶40

5.The Inspector of Police, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.19842 of 2024

¶44

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACJ. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.19842 of 2024

¶48

Jvm

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.19842 of 2024

¶50

20.09.2024

¶51

¶52

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

Thangammal N v. The Joint Commissioner cum Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thangammal N v. The Joint Commissioner cum Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Selvan Vs The Commissioner

Sridhar Vs The District Collector

A.Murugarajan, Vs the Corporation of Madurai

K.Sivabalamoorthi Vs The District Collector

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs S. Arun