R.Surendar, v. The Sub-Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 20.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.NOS.33413 OF 2015, 35351 & 35352 OF 2012 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2015 AND M.P.NOS.2 AND 2 OF 2012 W.P.NO.33413 OF 2015
1. R.Surendar
2. Ms.S.Sruthi
3. Ms.S.Swathi
4. N.Udayachander
5. N.Jayachandar ... Petitioners .Vs.
1. The Sub-Collector, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
2. The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
3. The Arulmihu Ammaneeswaraswamy Thirukovil, Rep. By its Executive Officer, Karapadi Moolanur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
4. The Arulmihu Varadaraja Perumal Thirukovil, Rep. By its Executive Officer, Moolanur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Na.Ka.No.8749/ 2008/A1 dated 20.08.2015 and quash the same.
For Petitioners :
Mr.S.Thirumavalavan For Respondents :
Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan Government Advocate For R1 to R3 Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan For R4 W.P.NO.35351 OF 2012
1. R.Surendar
2. N.Krishnaveni
3. N.Jayachandran
4. N.Udaya Chandran ... Petitioners .Vs.
1. The Special Officer/District Revenue Officer (Temple Lands), Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
2. The Arulmihu Ammaneeswaraswamy Thirukovil, Rep. By its Executive Officer, Karapadi, Moolanur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
3. The Arulmihu Varadaraja Perumal Thirukovil Rep. By its Executive Officer, Moolanur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for Writ of Certiorari calling for the proceedings of the respondent made in Na.Ka.No.253/2008 dated 14.12.2012 and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Thirumavalavan For Respondents : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan Government Advocate For R1 & R2 Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan For R3
W.P.NO.35352 OF 2012
1. R.Surendar
2. N.Krishnaveni
3. N.Jayachandran
4. N.Udaya Chandran ... Petitioners .Vs.
1. The Special Officer/District Revenue Officer (Temple Lands), Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
2. The Arulmihu Ammaneeswaraswamy Thirukovil, Rep. By its Executive Officer, Karapadi, Moolanur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
3. The Arulmihu Varadaraja Perumal Thirukovil Rep. By its Executive Officer, Moolanur, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for Writ of Certiorari calling for the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Na.Ka.No.466/2012 dated 14.12.2012 and quash the same.
For Petitioners :
Mr.S.Thirumavalavan For Respondents : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan Government Advocate For R1 & R2 Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan For R3 COMMON ORDER This common order will dispose of captioned three writ petitions. 'W.P.No.33413 of 2015' shall be referred to as 'I writ petition', 'W.P.No.35351 of 2013' shall be referred to as 'II writ petition' and 'W.P.No.35352 of 2013' shall be
referred to as 'III writ petition' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
2. Ms.K.Abhirame, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioners in captioned three writ petitions and Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned State counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 (R1 to R3) in I writ petition, Respondents 1 and 2 (R1 and R2) in II and III writ petitions and Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekanathan, learned counsel for fourth respondent in I writ petition and third respondent in II and III writ petitions (Executive Officer) are before this Virtual Court.
3. Factual matrix qua captioned writ petitions in a nutshell is, vast extents of lands were given as Devadayam inam to temples which are under the control, administration and management of 'Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department' ('TN HR & CE Dept.' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity) and are governed by 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959)' (hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity).
4. There is also no disputation, disagreement or contestation before this Court that the lands are directly and squarely covered by '[Tamil Nadu] Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Minor Inams Abolition Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
5. Writ petitioners claim that they are purchasers, who were unsuccessful in getting ryotwari patta before Settlement Officer under the Minor Inams Abolition Act, but were subsequently successful in statutory appeals. Be that as it may, much water has flown under the bridge thereafter, but there has been no corrosion qua the bridge as the principles governing the Minor Inams Abolition Act and title remained unchanged during this period. To be noted, there has also been several legal proceedings at the instance of the writ petitioners.
6. It may not be necessary to advert to all those legal proceedings, suffice to advert to one legal proceedings, namely W.P.No.15714 of 2014 in which the first writ petitioner in the I writ petition is the sole writ petitioner. The prayer was to direct the Sub-Collector, Pollachi District (first respondent therein) to dispose of the pending cases before him as per earlier orders of this Court dated 21.08.2008 made in W.P.No.11512 of 2008. This earlier writ petition was one assailing proceedings dated 22.03.2008, but, the writ petitioners were directed by a Hon'ble single Judge to go before the Sub-Collector.
7. Aforementioned W.P.No.15714 of 2014 was disposed of by a Hon'ble single Judge of this Court and the most relevant paragraphs of the disposal order are paragraphs 4 to 6, which read as follows:
'4.Thereafter, the first respondent has been issuing repeated by notices dated 03.10.2008, 25.11.2008, 01.12.2008, 11.01.2009, 28.01.2009, 10.05.2012 and 20.06.2012 respectively. According to the petitioner, he has been appearing before the first respondent for all the hearings, but, since there is change of the Sub-Collector frequently, the matter is being adjourned.
5.In the light of the above, the first respondent is directed to fix a date for hearing, on which date the petitioner shall appear in person and make submissions. Simultaneously, notices shall be sent to the second and third respondents and they shall also be heard in person and after conducting enquiry, the first respondent shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.This petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. '
8. Pursuant to the aforementioned order of the Hon'ble single Judge, the Sub-Collector embarked upon the exercise of conducting an enquiry and passed an order dated 20.08.2015, bearing reference Na.Ka.8749/2008/A1. Notwithstanding very many averments and very many grounds raised in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioners made focussed submission on one point and that one point is that Sub-Collector does not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. This, in the considered view of this Court, is a non-starter and the reason is, the writ petitioners submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the first respondent and the writ petitioners moved this Court by way of a writ petition and at their instance, a directive was given to the first respondent to conduct an enquiry.
Therefore, the writ petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate. The writ petitioners are raising this issue after the outcome, more particularly, after the outcome is adverse to them. Writ petitioners cannot now be heard to contend that the first respondent does not have jurisdiction to make the impugned order. This by itself draws the curtains on the I writ petition.
9. This takes us to II and III writ petitions. The II and III writ petitions are directed against mere enquiry notices.
Two enquiry notices assailed in the II writ petition are as follows:
10. Enquiry notice assailed in the III writ petition is as follows:
11. To be noted, there is no argument that the Enquiry Notices have been issued without jurisdiction. There is nothing to demonstrate that any prejudice is going to be caused to the writ petitioners if they participate in the enquiry. As regards Minor Inams Abolition Act, though not specifically argued before me, I deem it appropriate to refer to Section 11(2)(a)(ii) of Minor Inams Abolition Act, which reads as follows: '11) Determination of lands in respect of which any person is entitled to ryotwari patta (1)......
(2) (a) .......
(i) ......
(ii) if the inam has been granted for the benefit of a Hindu religious institution or for service therein, to the Commissioner appointed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) or to an officer specified by the said Commissioner in this behalf.'
12. The aforementioned provision, makes it clear that whenever there is enquiry qua a inam has been granted for the benefit of a Hindu Religious Institution or for service therein, Commissioner under the TN HR & CE Act or an Officer specified by the said Commissioner in this behalf should be put on notice. In the instant case, Hindu Religious Institution is a temple, the 'Religious Institution' is defined in Section 6(18) of TN HR & CE Act and a perusal of this definition makes it clear as daylight that Religious institution includes a temple.
13. A careful perusal of the order made by the Tribunal, i.e., order in the statutory appeal, brings to light that it has proceeded on the basis that temple has not come before the Appellate Tribunal to make a rival claim. As rightly pointed out by counsel for respondent, temple was neither made a party or not put on notice. This is certainly a infraction of Section 11(2)(a)(ii) of Minor Inams Abolition Act and this infraction is a legal infarct as it is fatal.
14. Be that as it may, this Court is informed that there was no further appeal to this Court. To be noted, there is a further appeal available to a Tribunal, the appeal is heard by two Hon'ble judges of this Court, but those Hon'ble Judges will not constitute a Division Bench, but will be a Tribunal. The law is
well settled in this regard by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide a catena of case laws. However, in the instant case, as there is an infraction of Section 11(2)(a)(ii) of Minor Inams Abolition Act, it is well open to the said temple to take necessary measures in this regard, if so advised.
15. Be that as it may, there is another very important aspect of the matter and that is, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Srinivasan and others Vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami and others reported in 1998-2-LW 189 has made it clear that settlement officer's proceedings will not act as a res judicata for a title suit and it has been made clear that a title suit can proceed and a title suit is maintainable with regard to minor inam lands de hors ryotwari patta proceedings. This legal position also is indisputable. Under such circumstances, merely because there were some ryotwari proceedings, enquiry notice cannot be stalled. In the instant case, this Court finds that II and III writ petitions are of the year 2012, interim orders were granted and enquiry proceedings have been stalled for nearly a decade now. In the light of the settled position regarding minor inam lands, it is well open to the writ petitioners to assail the impugned order in the I writ petition in a manner known to law if so advised and if that be so. Likewise, the questions pertaining to title are left open.
16. Before concluding, learned counsel for respondents i.e., Executive Officer drew the attention of this Court to three case laws, namely (i) Chandra Sundararaj (died) and others Vs. C.M.Dhinakaran @ Suresh and others reported in 2019 (3) CTC 517, (ii) Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Admn. Department reported in (2006) 1 SCC 257 and (iii) A.T.S. Chinnaswami Chettiar etc. v. Sri. Kari Varadaraja Perumal Temple & Anr. reported in 1996-1-L.W.63.
17. All the questions including the questions raised in the captioned writ petitions are left open for the writ petitioners to be raised in the enquiry and if so raised, it will be open to the authority to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by this order notwithstanding any portion of this order which has trappings or traces of any observation which appear/which come across as having been made on merits of the matter in this order.
In the light of the narrative thus far, no further discussion is necessary and the captioned writ petitions are disposed of with the aforementioned directives and observations.
Suffice to say that proceedings in II and III writ petitions shall be continued and the same shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event within twelve weeks from today i.e., on or before 13.12.2021. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gpa To 1.
The Sub-Collector, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
2.
The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
3.
The Special Officer/District Revenue Officer (Temple Lands), Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader(HR & CE), S.R.No.48081 W.P.NOS.33413 OF 2015, 35351 & 35352 OF 2012 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2015, M.P.NOS.2 AND 2 OF 2012 JP-II(CO) PBS/30/11/2021