← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/16065/2021disposed of

Selvam.P.T v. The Joint Commissioner

2021-09-08Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P(MD).No.16065 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD).No.12937 and 12938 of 2021 P. T. Selvam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner, Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Thirunelveli.

2.The Executive Officer/Thakkar, Joint Commissioner of Subramania Temple, Parvathipuram Udamootu Dharmam Of Arulmighu Subramania Temple, Tiruchendur, Nagercoil.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nagarcoil.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent vide his proceedings in M.P.No. 43 of 2016 dated 30.12.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr. D. Senthil For Respondents : Mr. P. Subbaraj Counsel for the State for R1 and R2 For R3 : Mr. M. Muthugeethayan

ORDER

The petitioner challenges an order dated 30.12.2016 by which it was concluded that the petitioner is an encroacher in the relevant temple property.

2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property bearing resurvey No. G1/75 to 107 and G1/10 to 16 of an extent of 3 1/3

cents. It is stated that the said property was purchased under a registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, all the revenue records were changed in his father's name and property tax was also assessed in his father's name.

3. In these circumstances, it is stated that the second and third respondents filed proceedings for eviction under Section 78 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (the Act of 1959). Pursuant thereto, it is stated that the first respondent issued an ex-parte order on 30.12.2016. In spite of filing an application to set aside the ex-parte order, the petitioner states that no order was passed on such application. The present writ petition is filed in the said facts and circumstances.

4. Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of the first and third respondents and Mr.M.Muthugeethayan, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent. Mr.M.Muthugeethayan submits that the petitioner did not take any steps to prosecute the application to set aside the order dated 30.12.2016. He also submits that the present writ petition has been filed in view of the action taken to evict encroachers, including the petitioner herein. He also points out that the petitioner has a statutory remedy by way of a revision under section 21 of the Act of 1959.

5. Upon consideration of the above submissions and on examining the documents filed in support of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has not taken any steps to set aside or challenge the order dated 30.12.2016. Although it is stated that the set aside application was filed, it is apparent from the documents on record that such application has not even been numbered till date.

6. As correctly pointed out by learned counsel for the second respondent, the petitioner has a statutory remedy by way of revision under section 21 of the Act of 1959. Ordinarily, such revision should be filed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner claims that a set aside application was filed and also taking into account the fact that the relevant Sub Section of Section 21 does not state that a petition cannot be entertained after the lapse of the 90 day period, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is permitted to file a revision within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

If such revision is filed within the above mentioned 15 day period, the authority concerned is directed to consider such revision petition without going into the question of limitation and dispose of the same on merits. The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps to dispossess the petitioner during the above mentioned 15 day period.

stand discharged ipso facto.

7. W.P.(MD).No.16065 of 2021 is disposed of on these terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD). Nos.12937 and 12938 of 2021 are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sbn 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, Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Thirunelveli.

2.The Executive Officer/Thakkar, Joint Commissioner of Subramania Temple, Parvathipuram Udamootu Dharmam Of Arulmighu Subramania Temple, Tiruchendur, Nagercoil.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nagarcoil.

+1 CC to M/s.G.RAGHUL, Advocate ( SR-28562[F] dated 08/09/2021 ) W.P(MD).No.16065 of 2021 08.09.2021 SRR(CO) KB(17.09.2021) 3P 5C 3/3