Madras High CourtWP/20498/2019dismissed

A.Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary

2021-02-08Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.02.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.No.20498 of 2019 A.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009.

3. The Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

4. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department 119, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai - 600 034.

5. The District Collector Salem.

6. The Taluk Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar Salem.

7. The Commissioner of Police Salem.

8. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Salem.

9. The Fit Person/Assistant Commissioner cum Executive Officer Arulmigu Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple Salem Town.

.. Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of mandamus Directing respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary steps to acquire the land in accordance with law to Rajaganapathy temple under the control of 9th respondent by considering the proceedings dated 30.09.2015 issued by the 5th respondent and also by considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2015. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Radhakrishnan Party-in-person For Respondents : Ms.R.J.Radhika Government Advocate for respondents 1, 3, 5 to 7 Mrs.Rehana Begum Government Advocate for respondents 2, 4, 8 and

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.) The writ petition has been filed to direct respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary steps to acquire the land adjoining the Rajaganapathy Temple, which is under the control of the ninth respondent.

2. The ninth respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that it is not necessary to acquire the land adjoining the temple because the land which is presently available is adequate and sufficient.

3. The acquisition of such land is clearly a policy decision of the appropriate official respondents and a mandamus cannot be issued for this purpose as requested by the petitioner. Accordingly, by taking note of the statement in the counter-affidavit of the ninth respondent, W.P.No.20498 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

sasi To: