K.M. Muthusamy v. Joint Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and M.P.[MD]No.2 of 2013 K.M.Muthusamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1.Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Tiruchirapalli - 620 006.
2.Rental Fixation Committee, Represented by Joint Commissioner and other members, O/o. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Tiruchirapalli - 620 006.
3.Hereditary Trustee, A/M. Mariamman Vagaiyara Temples, Karur - 639 001.
Karur District.
... Respondents P RAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Tiruchirapalli - 620 006 made in Che.Mu.Pa.Mu.No.9233/2013/E1 dated Nil/07.2013 and signed on 31.07.2013, the first respondent herein and the letter dated 10.11.2013 of the Hereditary Trustee, A/M Mariamman Vagayara Temples, Andankulam East Village, Karur Taluk and District, the third respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Govindaraj For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For Respondents 2 & 3 : No appearance 1/8
O R D E R
*********** In the captioned main writ petition the fulcrum is a public temple which goes by the name Arulmigu Mariamman Thirukovil situate in Karur Town and Karur Taluk, Karur District [hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and central theme of the captioned writ petition is fixation of lease rent qua writ petitioner for the lands belonging to said temple [in which writ petitioner is admittedly a lessee] admeasuring 0.17 acres [71 cents] situate in Survey No.1996 in Keelbagam Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District [hereinafter 'demised land' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
2.Mr.R.Govindaraj, learned Counsel for writ petitioner and Mr.M.Lingdurai, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of first respondent are before me. Respondents 2 and 3 have been duly served and their names with full / complete addresses as in the cause title are shown in the cause list but there is no representation. I am informed that respondents 2 & 3 have not entered appearance through Counsel. The description of second respondent is not happily worded. However, it may not be necessary to go into those aspects as the second respondent as per the Court records has been served and name is shown in the cause list. 3.Reverting to the case on hand, learned Counsel for writ petitioner submits that writ petitioner is a lessee under said temple qua demised land. The captioned writ petition is nearly a decade old in this Court.
To be precise, it was filed on 10.12.2013 and therefore, tomorrow the captioned writ petition will turn nine in this Court. There is no disputation that as on the date of filing of writ petition the writ petitioner was a lessee under the said temple qua demised land for 30 years which means the writ petitioner is holding the same for 39 years now. The writ petitioner some time in mid 2013 sent an undated communication to the hereditary trustee of said temple inter alia saying that writ petitioner intends to convert said land into residential plots and has specifically requested for fixation of lease rent on that basis. This undated communication is at page No.
3/8
4.Acting on the aforementioned communication, lease rent has been fixed on 17.07.2013 and it is obvious that such fixation is under Section 34-A of 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959)' {hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of brevity}. Thereafter, the first respondent has sent a communication to the writ petitioner in July of 2013 (signed on 31.07.2013) which reads as follows: 5.Post fixation as above, hereditary trustee of the said temple [third respondent] has sent a further communication to writ petitioner being communication dated 10.11.2013. A scanned reproduction of the same is as follow:
4/8
5/8
6/8
6.Assailing the aforesaid two communications from the first and third respondents, captioned main writ petition has been filed. Notice has been issued in the captioned main writ petition on 11.12.2013 nearly 9 long years ago and it has been pending on the file of this Court for nearly 9 years now. As already alluded to supra, tomorrow, the writ petition will turn nine and enter into a year which will make it a decade old matter.
7.Be that as it may, learned Counsel for writ petitioner in his campaign against the two impugned proceedings submits that lease rent has been fixed on the premise that demised land is commercial property. This according to learned Counsel for writ petitioner is incorrect. Learned Counsel also submits that he was not put on notice regarding lease rent fixation.
8.In response to the above submissions, learned State Counsel submits that lease rent fixation was made in accordance with the parameters of Section 34-A and more importantly such legal drill was done on the basis of the letter given by the writ petitioner saying that he is converting demised agricultural land into house sites. 9.I deem it appropriate to not to express any opinion on the lease rent fixation ie.,Rs.57,290/- per month as that appears to have been done on 17.07.2013 as is evident from the impugned proceedings and those proceedings fixing lease rent has not been assailed before me. Only communication to the writ petitioner about the fixation of lease rent has been assailed before me. 10.In the light of the narrative thus far it becomes clear that writ petitioner's grievance is regarding fixation of lease rent.
Fixation of lease rent has to be assailed by the writ petitioner (if at all and if that be so) by way of a statutory appeal under subsection (3) of Section 34-A and statutory appeal lies to the 'Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department' [hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Dept.,' for brevity] sitting at 109, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. It is well open to the writ petitioner to assail the lease rent fixation under Section 34-A(3) subject of course to limitation and predeposit conditions adumbrated therein. I express no opinion on these aspects of the matter as the proceedings dated 17.07.2013 fixing lease rent has not been assailed before me.
It is also made clear that subject to limitation and pre-deposit condition, the challenge shall be dealt with by appellate authority on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made in this regard.
7/8
11.In the result, captioned writ petition is dismissed albeit preserving the rights of the writ petitioner to the limited extent indicated supra. Consequently, captioned Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-II) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) MR NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To 1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Tiruchirapalli - 620 006.
2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, 109,Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
+1 CC to M/s.R.GOVINDARAJ, Advocate ( SR-38149[F] dated 10/12/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-38133[F] dated 10/12/2021 ) ORDER MADE IN 09.12.2021 NSN(CO) GC(28.12.2021) 8P 5C 8/8