Disposed

Palanisamy. Kc v. The Commissioner

Madras HC22 Apr 2024WP(MD)/9627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to recover encroached temple lands. With consent of parties and noting proceedings were initiated under Section 78 of HR & CE Act, 1959, the Court remitted the matter for expeditious reporting.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed at the time of admission but directed respondents to remove encroachments and act on report within 8 weeks and report compliance.

Palanisamy. Kc Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2024

K.C.Palanisamy

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road,

¶12

Chennai 600 034.

¶13

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶14

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trichy District.

¶15

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶16

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trichy District.

¶17

4.The Inspector,

¶18

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thuvarankurichi,

¶19

Trichy District.

¶20

5.Malayandi

¶21

6.Malayandi ... Respondents

¶22

1/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2024

¶25

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the 5^th respondent based on the recommendation of the 4^th respondent dated 06.03.2024 for not taking action to recover the temple lands, for not taking action to the development of the temple for residing in the temple land without any permission, bring the 5^th respondents Arulmigu Velamalai Kannimar temple land in S.F.No. 26/1 to an extent of 1.90 hectare, S.F.No. 26/6 to an extent of 0.13.50 hectare and S.F.No. 44/10 an extent of 0.91.50 hectare, total extent of 2.95.00 hectares of Punja land of Velakurichi Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District for public auction, within the time frame as stipulated by this Court.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan

¶27

For R1 to R4 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R5 & R6 : Mr.S.I.Muthiah

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard Mr.A.N.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶30

Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.S.I.Muthiah, learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6.

¶31

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

¶32

2/6

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2024

¶34

2.With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed on merits at this stage.

¶35

3.The Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the fifth respondent based on the recommendation of the fourth respondent dated 06.03.2024 for not taking action to recover the temple lands, for not taking action to the development of the temple for residing in the temple land without any permission and to bring the fifth respondent's, Arulmigu Velamalai Kannimar, temple land in S.F.No. 26/1, to an extent of 1.90 hectare, S.F.No. 26/6, to an extent of 0.13.50 hectare and S.F.No. 44/10, to an extent of 0.91.50 hectare, total extent of 2.95.00 hectares, at Velakurichi Village, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District for public auction.

¶36

4.The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the petitioner's representation, which was acted upon by the fourth respondent on 06.03.2024, will be disposed of on merits.

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2024

¶40

5.The learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the proceeding under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, 1959 has already been initiated against the encroachers and steps have been taken to implement the same.

¶41

6.Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition stands disposed of by directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take steps to remove the encroachments and act on the report of the fourth respondent as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶42

Post this Writ Petition on 28.06.2024 for reporting compliance.

¶43

Index : Yes / No 22.04.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm

¶44

To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034.

¶45

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

¶46

4/6

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2024

¶48

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶49

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trichy District.

¶50

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶51

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trichy District.

¶52

4.The Inspector,

¶53

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thuvarankurichi, Trichy District.

¶54

5/6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2024

¶57

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶58

¶59

W.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2024

¶60

22.04.2024

¶61

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

¶62

6/6

Palanisamy. Kc v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanisamy. Kc v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Chinnapal Vs The Regional Transport Officer

Orkla India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner St

Meenakshi Bar Vs The State Tax Officer

Gnanaprakasam Singaraj Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M.Muruganantham Vs The Commissioner

G.Syed Akbar Hasan Vs The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board