Disposed¶44

Revathi v. the Commissioner

Madras HC22 Jan 2025WP/1309/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HR & CE Act; Section 78; eviction order; encroacher; Joint Commissioner; M.P.No.268 of 2024; temple land lease; fair rent fixation; Arulmigu Vaithiyanatha Swami Temple, Tittakudi; Survey No.137/1; 4160 sq.ft.; representation dated 25.11.2024; revision petition; stay petition; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ disposed; no costs; connected WMP No.1560 of 2025; Revathi; S.Sounthar J.; 22.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief as prayed (mandamus to consider the representation was not granted). Writ petition disposed of with observations directing the petitioner to the revision route against the Section 78 eviction order before the first respondent; failing a timely revision, respondents may act in accordance with law. No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No.1560 of 2025) closed.

Revathi Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent should be directed (by writ of mandamus under Article 226) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2024 seeking recognition as lessee of the temple property and fixation of fair rent. +1 more

¶29

Ratio / Principle

It remains open to the petitioner to challenge the eviction order passed by the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner by filing a revision petition before the jurisdictional authority (the first respondent) within the time allowed under law.

¶43

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files such a revision petition along with a stay petition, the first respondent shall consider and dispose of it in accordance with law.ratio¶43
If the petitioner fails to file a Revision within the time allowed under law, it is open to the respondents to take further action against her in accordance with law.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.), W.P.No.1309 of 2025, disposed of 22.01.2025 — HR & CE temple lease dispute. Petitioner Revathi sought a writ of mandamus (Article 226, Constitution of India) directing the first respondent (Commissioner, HR & CE Department) to consider her representation dated 25.11.2024 for recognition as lessee and fixation of fair rent over Survey No.137/1, Tittakudi Nagar and Circle, Cuddalore District (4160 sq.ft.) belonging to Arulmigu Vaithiyanatha Swami Temple, claiming possession since 1970. She alleged the temple refused her rent after her father's death and initiated eviction under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act. Counsel for respondents pointed out that the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner had already passed an eviction order against her as an encroacher in M.P.No.268 of 2024 (dated 28.01.2024 per counsel; 28.10.2024 per the court's reading of the typed set). Disposing of the petition, the Court held it open to the petitioner to challenge the eviction order by a revision petition before the first respondent within the time allowed under law; any such revision filed with a stay petition shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law; failing a timely revision, the respondents may take further action in accordance with law. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP No.1560 of 2025) closed.

¶1

W.P.No.1309 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 22.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.1309 of 2025 and WMP No.1560 of 2025

Revathi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Cuddalore District.

¶14

The Executive Officer, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Arulmigu Vaithiyanatha Swami Temple, Tittakudi, Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India

¶16

seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2024

¶17

and direct the respondents to execute a fresh lease rent in favour of the

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.1309 of 2025

¶21

petitioner with a fair rent and terms as fixed therein in respect of the

¶22

land survey No.137/1 in Tittakudi Nagar and Circle, Cuddalore District

¶23

totally measuring and 4160 sq.ft. property belongs to Arulmigu

¶24

Vaithiyanatha Swamy Temple, Tittakudi, Cuddalore District.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Reegan Ujakar for Mr.T.Dharani

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravichandran, Addl.Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first

¶29

respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2024 seeking her recognition as lessee in the subject property and fixation of fair rent.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property has

¶31

been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and her forefathers from the year 1970. It is also stated by the petitioner that during the life time of petitioner's father, he had been paying rent to the third respondent temple and after his death, the petitioner expressed her

¶32

Page 2 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.1309 of 2025

¶35

willingness to continue as tenant in the temple property. However, the third respondent did not allow the petitioner to pay the rent and initiated eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation before the first respondent expressing her willingness to continue as tenant under the temple. The petitioner also made a request for fixation of fair rent. The said representation has not been considered and hence, the petitioner has come before this court.

¶36

Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader,

¶37

who takes notice for the respondents would submit that already the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner has passed an eviction order against petitioner under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, treating her as an encroacher in M.P.No.268 of 2024 on 28.01.2024 and hence, the present representation filed by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage

¶38

It is seen from the typed set of papers that the eviction order

¶39

was passed against the petitioner, treating her as an encroacher by the

¶40

Page 3 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.1309 of 2025

¶43

jurisdictional Joint Commissioner on 28.10.2024. Hence, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the said order, if she is so advised, before the jurisdictional authority, namely the first respondent, within a time allowed under law. If any such revision petition is filed along with the stay petition, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the first respondent in accordance with law. If the petitioner failed to file any Revision, within the time allowed under law, it is open to the respondents to take further action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶44