R.Jayaraman v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.29492 of 2016 and WMP. No.25546 of 2016 R.Jayaraman ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.
4. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Pachaiamman Temple, Perumal Mudali Street, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents resulting in the impugned order of the first respondent in D.Dis.R.P.No.104/2016/D2 dated 13.5.2016 confirming the order passed of the 2nd respondent passed in Rc.No.14893/2008/A2 dated 10.6.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to restore the possession of the property situated at Door No.32, Perumal Mudali Street, comprised in Survey No.93, Block No.1, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ilango For Respondents : Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan Government Advocate
O R D E R
The petitioner challenges order dated 13.05.2016 passed in Revision Petition No.104 of 2016 by the Commissioner, HR&CE Department, arrayed as R1. The impugned order confirms an order passed by the Joint Commissioner/R2 under Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 ('Act') dated 10.06.2015.
2. R2, in the impugned order, takes note of the position that the petitioner is an encroacher in the property at Door No.32, Perumal Mudali Street, comprised in S.No.9/3, Block No.1, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 admeasuring 1245 sq. ft. (property/property in question) belonging to the Arulmigu Pachaiyammal Temple (temple).
3. It appears that the property in question was occupied by the grandmother of the petitioner who had also put up superstructure therein as early as in 1906. Notices were issued by the Joint Commissioner, the original authority arrayed as R...., in terms of Section 78 of the Act and after due process, the petitioner was held to be a rank encroacher, vide order of eviction dated 10.06.2015. Admittedly, the petitioner's family has been possession of the property even after the passing of order dated 10.06.2015, continuously engaged in commercial activities in the premises in question and also in arrears of rent.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the order of the Joint Commissioner has not been served upon him in the manner required under Rule 6 of the Removal of Encroachments on Lands or Buildings Belonging to Religious Institutions Rules (G.O.Ms.No.383, Revenue dated 29.01.1962).
5. A perusal of the Rule indicates that an order under Section 78 shall be served upon the petitioner and shall be brought to the notice of the lessee, licencee or mortgagee as well as the trustee of the institution concerned either by way of RPAD or publication or any by way of affixture in conspicuous place or by way of publication in a daily newspaper in the regional language. This would ensure that the petitioner is well aware of the passing of the order, as are the temple and the concerned trustee and is in a position to seek redressal in regard to the same.
6. In the present case, the respondents would aver that the petitioner was duly served with a copy of the order by post. However no proof has been produced before me in this regard. Be that as it may, the petitioner has obtained a copy of the order impugned from the office of the Joint Commissioner/R2 and challenged the same by way of petition, albeit filed with delay. The Revision Petition has been entertained by R1, who has, considering the admitted facts involved, dismissed the same on merits and not on the ground of delay. Thus, the objection as regards service is not material as the petitioner has had sufficient opportunity to challenge the order in appeal.
7. Moreover, there are concurrent findings of fact in the orders of the Joint Commissioner as well as Commissioner to the effect that there is no valid arrangement qua the petitioner and the temple in regard to the property in question, the petitioner has been utilising the property for commercial purposes without paying the rent for several years and the temple has taken possession of the property on 29.01.2016.
8. In light of the discussion as above, I see no merit whatsoever in this writ petition and dismiss the same. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vs To
1. The Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.
4. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Pachaiamman Temple, Perumal Mudali Street, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
+1cc to M/s.A.Inango, Advocate, S.R.No.34785 W.P.No.29492 of 2016 and WMP. No.25546 of 2016 JP-II(CO) SU(17/09/2021)