G.Annal Arputha Chinnarani Vs The Joint Commissioner

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tirunelveli. 3. The Executive Officer, A/m Madha Angaleswari Thirukovil, Palayamkottai 627 002. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings bearing No. M.P.No. 15/2025 dated 09.03.2018, issued by the first respondent and to quash the same.

¶11

1/10

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.(MD) No. 18836 of 2025

¶14

For petitioner : Mr. Aayiram K.Selvakumar

¶15

For respondents : Mr.S.S.Madhavan Additional Government Pleader *****

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶18

The petitioner claims to be a wife of Late.Gnana Chelladurai, who according to the petitioner, alongwith the petitioner, has been possession of the subject property since 1984. It is submitted that the petitioner's husband died on 30.01.2016, however, the proceedings have been initiated in the name of the petitioner's late husband under Section 78 of the TN HR& CE Act, 1959 by treating the occupation by the petitioner's husband and the petitioner as that of an encroacher.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent had also approached the Tahsildar for obtaining patta over the land and since no

¶20

2/10

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD) No. 18836 of 2025

¶23

orders were passed, the third respondent had approached this Court in W.P. (MD)No.2104 of 2019, wherein by an order, dated 01.02.2019, it has been observed as under:

¶24

8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations, dated 22.02.2018, 14.03.2018 and 03.08.2018 and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other necessary parties, if any, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of of this receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid order, dated 01.02.2019, the jurisdictional Tahsildar has also passed an order, dated 18.02.2019 bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.Aa7/7491/2018, wherein it has been confirmed that the subject land was a ‘Arasu Poramboke’ and not that of the temple, namely, A/m Madha Angaleswari Thirukovil.

¶26

In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to various documents to substantiate that the petitioner, along with her deceased husband has been possession in the subject land, wherein a hut put up by them and assessed with property tax and also took electricity connection.

¶27

3/10

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No. 18836 of 2025

¶30

It is submitted that the land does not belong to the temple, therefore, the temple has no authority to invoke power under Section 78 of the TNHR&CE Act, 1959.

¶31

It is further submitted that the order of the Tahsildar, dated 18.02.2019 bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.Aa7/7491/2018 has stated that there is no possibility for issuing patta to the third respondent/temple.

¶32

The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the Town Survey Register indicates that the subject land has been classified as the land belonging to the third respondent/ temple.

¶33

That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to an order passed in W.P.(MD)No.14981 of 2025 in the case filed by one P.Naresh Ambedkar, wherein by an order, dated 03.06.2025, the Court had disposed of the Writ Petition as the petitioner therein had failed to observe the conditions stipulated in order in W.A.(MD) No.1253 of 2019 on 24.10.2019.

¶34

4/10

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No. 18836 of 2025

¶37

It is submitted that the petitioner as also the petitioner's husband evaded

¶38

the notice and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed on 09.03.2018.

¶39

It is further submitted that the impugned order, dated 09.03.2018 relates to the proceedings initiated as early as on 27.04.2004, pursuant to which an order has been passed in M.P.No.15 of 2005. Thereafter, a notice was also issued on

¶40

25.11.2005. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

¶41

“cjtp Mizau; mwpf;if kw;Wk; kDjhuu;fspd; kD Mfpatw;iw guprPypf;ifapy; vjpu;kDjhuu; kPJ rl;lg;gpupT 78-d; fPo; eltbf;if vLf;f NghJkhd fhuzq;fs; ,Ug;gjhf njupe;jjhy; (Prima facie) ,t;tYtyf vk;.gp vz; 15/2005/m2 ehs; 25.11.2005 mwptpg;G %yk; Nkw;gb Mf;fpukpg;ig Vd; mfw;w $lhJ vd;gjw;fhd fhuzq;fis 21.12.2005 md;W eilngWk; tprhuizapd;NghJ ,iz Mizau; Kd;G NeupNyh my;yJ tof;fwpQu; %yNkh M[uhfp vOj;J G+u;tkhf njuptpf;Fk;gb vjpu;kDjhuUf;F mwptpg;G nfhLf;fg;gl;lJ.”

¶42

The further averments in the impugned order indicate that the notice was issued to the petitioner's late husband Gnana Chelladurai as is evident as follows:

¶43

“vjpu;kDjhuu; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l vjpUiuapy; kD jgrpy; nrhj;J njhlu;ghf jpUney;Ntyp khtl;l cupikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mw;Gj rpd;duhzp vd;gtuhy;

¶44

5/10

¶45

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

¶46

;

¶47

W.P.(MD) No. 18836 of 2025

¶48

mz;zhkiyr; nrl;bahu; vd;gtiu vjpu;j;J mry; tof;F 281/91 tpsk;Gif gupfhuk; Nfl;Lk ; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis Ntz;bAk; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;ljhfTk;> Nkw;gb tof;fpy; 20.09.1991 md;W mw;Gj rpd;duhzp vd;gtUf;F rhjfkhf jPu;g;G toq;fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk;> mNj Nghy; kD jpUf;Nfhapy; jf;fhuhy; Nkw;gb uhzp vd;gtiu vjpu;j;J jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l mry; tof;F 744/1984-y; fjT vz; 17 njhlu;ghf gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPu;g;gpy; mry; tof;fpd; kDjhuuhy; tiuglj;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;l Rtw;wpd; Mf;fpukpg;ig mfw;w cj;jutplg;gl;ljhfTk; Nkw;gb cj;jutpd;gb jpUf;Nfhapy; epu;thfj;jhy; Rtw;wpd; NkYs;s nghUl;fs; 12.11.2002mfw;wg;gl;ljhfTk;> ,d;W tiu jgrpy; nrhj;jpy; uhzp vd;gtupd; mDgtj;jpy; ,Ug;gjhfTk;> ,e;epiyapy; nry;yj;Jiu vd;gtu; kPJ njhlug;gl;l tof;F epiyf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;Wk;> ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd;gb jgrpy; nrhj;J uhzp vd;gtUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;Wk; ,e;jg; gytif kDtpd; kDjhuUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;ljy;y vd;Wk;. kDtpid js;Sgb nra;aTk; Ntz;bAs;shu;.”

¶49

Further, it appears that the petitioner's late husband had also engaged an advocate by name K.Sankara Raman, who had appeared on behalf of the petitioner's late husband. Thus, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the impugned order has been passed behind the back and also it is not open for the petitioner to contend that no notice was issued in the proceedings initiated in M.P.No.15 of 2005.

¶50

6/10

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No. 18836 of 2025

¶53

At best, the petitioner is entitled to file a representation under Section 21 of the TNHR&CE Act, 1959, before the Commissioner. Although the limitation is prescribed, has expired long back considering the fact that the petitioner claims that the order had not been received earlier and was received only recently on 14.05.2025, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a revision within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under Section 21 of the TNHR&CE Act, 1959 before the Commissioner.

¶54