R.Deivasigamani, v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 4/3/2016 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition No.8103 of 2016 R.Deivasigamani ...

Petitioner Vs

1. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Chennai 600 034.

2. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Mayiladuthurai.

3. The Executive Officer Sri Pasupatheeswara Swamy Thirukovil Pandanallur Thiruvidaimarudur Thanjavur.

4. Chellappan

...Respondents

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 7/7/2015 in Na.Ka.14296/2015/R1 dated 7/7/2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to evict fourth respondent from the property situated at Survey No.217/4, Thiruvaypadi Village, Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur District and also to direct the respondents to handover the possession of property to the petitioner.

For Petitioner ...

Mr.K.B.Vivekanandhan For respondent ...

Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan Additional Government Pleader (HR & CE) for R.R.1 and 2.

- - - - -

O R D E R

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

2. Heard Mr.K.B.Vivekanandhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader (HR & CE) for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 7/7/2015, in Na.Ka.14296/2015/R1 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3, to evict fourth respondent from the property, situated at Survey No.217/4, Thiruvaypadi Village, Thiruvidaimarudur Taluk, Thanjavur District and also to direct the respondents, to handover the possession of property, to the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the above said property was leased out permanently to the father of the petitioner by the temple.

His father had executed an unregistered Will, dated 21/4/1988 to his third wife, namely, Nagammal. After the death of his father, Nagammal colluded with one Sundaramoorthy, who is none other than the third wife's son of the petitioner's father, conveyed the subject land to the fourth respondent, who is a retired School teacher. The fourth respondent is now trying to sell the property by plots.

5. Hence the petitioner made a representation, dated 1/7/2013, to the District Collector, Thanjavur, to take appropriate action, for evicting the persons, who are illegally occupying the above said property. The District Collector, Thanjavur, forwarded the representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam; Revenue Divisional officer, Kumbakonam forwarded the representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Kumbakonam and then to the second and third respondents.

6. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.1817 of 2015, to direct the respondent therein, to take appropriate action upon his representation. On 28/1/2015, this Court had dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the first respondent therein and further directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, if he receives.

7. The petitioner gave a representation to the first respondent on 4/4/2015. Due to his old age, he was unable to attend the enquiry and hence he executed a special Power of Attorney viz., Eladev Prakash/son of the petitioner, to attend

the enquiry. After conducting enquiry, the first respondent had passed the impugned order. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the relief as stated therein.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent has no right upon the property and he is an encroacher. The learned counsel would further submit that the first respondent had failed to consider the name of Nagammal was inserted in the temple records by way of Will executed by the father of the petitioner and hence the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

9. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's request, to handover the property was rejected because he is not entitled for the temple property. However, the authority concerned is of the considered opinion to remove the name of the fourth respondent.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that this Court cannot give a positive direction to the fourth respondent, to handover the property, to the temple authority, since the temple authority themselves had taken a decision to remove the name of the fourth respondent from their records. Further, it is for the temple authorities to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the land or not? Therefore, this Court is not inclined to give any positive direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to handover the possession of land to the petitioner.

11. Hence recording the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the respondents 1 to 3 had taken decision to remove the name of the fourth respondent from their records, this writ petition is closed. No costs. mvs.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To

1. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Chennai 600 034.

2. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Mayiladuthurai.

3. The Executive Officer Sri Pasupatheeswara Swamy Thirukovil Pandanallur Thiruvidaimarudur Thanjavur.

+ 1 cc to Mr.K.B.Vivekanandan,Advocate, SR 14370 + 1 cc to Govt.Pleader, High Court, Madras SR 14529 vsn(co) prk23/3 W.P.No.8103 of 2016