← Library
Madras High CourtWP/31264/2025disposed of

Lakshmi v. The Joint Commissioner (Hr And Ce Department )

2025-08-21Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P.No.34991 of 2025

1. Lakshmi W/o.Pitchaimuthu

2. Saraswathi, D/o.Pitchaimuthu

3. Janaki, D/o.Pitchaimuthu

4. Shanthi, D/o.Pitchaimuthu ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner (HR & CE) Department, Thirupur.

2. The Assistant Commissioner (HR & CE) Department, Karur.

3.Arulmigu Bala Subramaniyaswamy Temple, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Vennaimalai, Karur District - 639 006.

... Respondents 1/6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 06.05.2025 in MISC No. 220/2024/m3 respectively and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Additional Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 06.05.2025 made in MISC No.220/2024/m3 under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] holding that the petitioners are encroachers of the temple land and the petitioners have been directed to vacate and hand over the premises failing which proceedings will be initiated under Section 79 of the Act to take possession.

2. Heard Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

2/6

3. The specific case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners of the subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 07.10.2010 registered as document No.9622 of 2010. The further case of the petitioners is that patta was also issued in their names and the property tax and water tax is assessed in the names of the petitioners. Apart from that, the petitioners are also paying electricity bills in their names.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that all of a sudden, the first respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 78 of the Act treating the petitioners as encroachers of the property alleged to be belonging to the temple. The petitioners had submitted all the relevant documents before the first respondent to prove the right and title and in spite of the same, the first respondent has held that the petitioners are encroachers and has directed the petitioners to vacate and handover possession of the property. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court.

5. On going through the order passed by the first respondent, it is seen that the first respondent has taken into consideration the earlier documents 3/6

that were available in the name of the temple. It is also seen that the change in the name in the revenue records has taken place during the UDR scheme and the first respondent has ascertained the fact that such change in name during the UDR scheme was taken advantage and documents were created as if the property in question is a private property. In view of the same, the first respondent has rendered a finding that the petitioners are encroachers.

6. In the considered view of this Court, the proceedings initiated by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department against the petitioners virtually creates a cloud over the title of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have to approach the competent civil Court and establish their right and title over the property by seeking for the relief of declaration and for consequential reliefs. This issue cannot be decided by the Joint Commissioner since the Joint Commissioner can exercise a limited jurisdiction and not to the extent to which a civil Court will exercise its jurisdiction. Now that a cause of action has arisen for the petitioners, no useful purpose will be served for the petitioners to agitate the dispute before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, either the petitioners have to approach the civil Court and seek for necessary 4/6

relief or the petitioners have to file a revision before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, under Section 21 of the Act. The issue raised in the present writ petition cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, except giving this liberty, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition.

7. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Registry is directed to return the original order passed by the first respondent to the learned counsel for the petitioners in order to enable the petitioners to work out their remedy.

21.08.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No gm 5/6

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

gm To 1.The Joint Commissioner (HR & CE) Department, Thirupur.

2. The Assistant Commissioner (HR & CE) Department, Karur.

3. Arulmigu Bala Subramaniyaswamy Temple, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Vennaimalai, Karur District - 639 006.

21.08.2025 (2/2) 6/6