Partly allowed

Poiyamani v. The Commissioner

Madras HC28 Mar 2024WP(MD)/5127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a hereditary trustee, filed a writ seeking mandamus for Action against encroachment on temple land. Court found Tahsildar had submitted a report and disposed of the case with stay directions implicating Joint Commissioner in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Joint Commissioner to conduct enquiry under Section 78 of HRCE Act and conclude within six months.

Poiyamani Vs The Commissioner — Corruption | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)No.5127 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 28.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.5127 of 2024 and WMP(MD)No.4908 of 2024

¶7

Poiyamani ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Commissioner,

¶10

Hindu Religious and

¶11

Charitable Endowment Board,

¶12

Nungambakkam High Road,

¶13

Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶14

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶15

Hindu Religious and

¶16

Charitable Endowment Board,

¶17

Thanjavur,

¶18

Thanjavur District.

¶19

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶20

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, North 3^rd Street,

¶21

Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶22

4.The Tahsildar, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukottai District.

¶23

5.The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukottai District.

¶24

6.Rasu ... Respondents

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

WP(MD)No.5127 of 2024

¶28

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate steps under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act against the 6^th respondent, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2023 within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

¶29

For Petitioner : No representation For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj, Nos.1 to 4 Special Govt Pleader For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanidhi No.3 Government Advocate (CrlSide)

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is a hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Poisolla Meiyyar Ayyanar Thirukovil at Moolangudi Village, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukottai District. He has approached this Court seeking a writ

¶32

of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent, the Executive Officer, to take appropriate steps under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 against the 6^th respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2023.

¶33

2/6

¶34

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

¶35

WP(MD)No.5127 of 2024

¶36

2.According to the petitioner the petitioner

¶37

temple is having lands about 120 acres and one of the lands is in S.No.364 to an extent of 7.18.5 hectares. The 6^th respondent has encroached a portion of the said land and has attempted to construct a marriage hall. This was questioned by the hereditary trustees. However, the 6^th respondent intimidated and created problem with them. Therefore, the petitioner as the trustee of the temple lodged a complaint before the respondents.

¶38

3.The 4^th respondent the Tahsildar has conducted an enquiry and found that the 6^th respondent has encroached the temple land and seven others have also encroached the lands in and around the temple. Therefore, the Tahsildar by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5460/2023/A3, dated 23.08.2023 intimated the 3^rd respondent about the encroachment made by the 6^th respondent and also suggested for taking

¶39

appropriate action to remove those encroachments. Even thereafter the 3^rd respondent, the Executive Officer has not acted upon. Therefore petitioner

¶40

3/6

¶41

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

¶42

Court.

¶43

WP(MD)No.5127 of 2024

¶44

being the hereditary trustee, has approached this Court.

¶45

5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that 4^th respondent is taking steps to initiate action under Section 78 of the HR and CE Act and also submitted a report to the Joint Commissioner for necessary action.

¶46

6.Considering that steps have been taken by the 4^th respondent by submitting a report to the Joint Commissioner concerned, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Joint Commissioner to conduct enquiry under Section 78 of the HR and CE Act and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

28.03.2024

DSK

4/6

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

¶51

WP(MD)No.5127 of 2024

¶52

¶53

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board,

¶54

Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶55

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board,

¶56

Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶57

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶58

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, North 3^rd Street, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶59

4.The Tahsildar, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukottai District.

¶60

5.The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Ponnamaravathi,

¶61

Pudukottai District.

¶62

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

¶63

5/6

¶64

WP(MD)No.5127 of 2024

¶65

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶66

dsk

¶67

WP(MD)No.5127 of 2024

¶68

28.03.2024

¶69

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

¶70

6/6

Poiyamani v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poiyamani 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

M/s.M R Tyres Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Rengasamy Velar.S Vs the Principal Secretary

Arulmigu Durgai Amman Temple Vs The Commissioner Hr and Ce

Rajangam.M Vs The Commissioner

Manivannan.C.T Vs The Joint Commissioner

The Executive Officer Vs Raja Boopathi