Mayandi v. The Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.22337 and 22338 of 2024 Mayandi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 52/A1, Thiruvanthapuram High Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Seethala Sivalingeswaran Thirukovil, & Arulmigu Varaguna Pandeeswaran Temple, HR & CE Department, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned auction notice dated 10.10.2024 issued by the third respondent for bid to participate in the auction of lease in respect of the properties, 1/7
comprised in Survey Nos. 383/1, 384/1, 384/12, 384/13, 384/7, 385/1, 385/3, 460/4, 463/2, 479/1, 480, 481/2, 532/2 and 622 measuring an extent of 22.50 hectares belonging to Arulmigu Seethala Sivalingeswaran Thirukovil, situated at Urumankulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and quash the same as illegal, improper, unlawful, unconstitutional and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to fix the auction sale price as per Rule 6(2) of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For R-1 and R-2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
Heard Mr.Mr.R.Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the auction notice dated 10.10.2024 issued by the third respondent to participate in the auction of lease in respect of the subject properties and consequently direct the respondents to fix the auction sale price as per Rule 6(2) of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963. 2/7
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the properties were leased to the petitioner from 2002 to 2022 and he had been regularly paying the lease amount. He would further submit that the petitioner had developed the said property and maintained the babul trees therein. He had also spent nearly a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by digging bore well to convert the same into that of an agricultural land. He would also submit that similarly other villagers had also dug the bore wells to the properties belonging to the respondent department and had cultivated the trees. However, the third respondent had issued a notification calling upon bids for leasing out 14 items of properties including the land in which the petitioner was in possession. He would submit that the petitioner had expended nearly Rs.
1,00,000/- only in the year 2022 with the hope that he would be continued in possession by renewing the lease as envisaged under Rule 6(2) of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963, by enhancing the lease amount by Rs.200/- per year. However, a notice has been issued fixing the minimum lease rent at Rs.2500/- per acre and therefore he would submit that the said notification affects the right of the petitioner as also the rules. He would submit that he is willing to extend the lease by paying an increased lease rental of Rs.200/- per year and therefore would seek to quash the tender notification issued by the third respondent and to direct the respondents to fix the auction sale price in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the said Rules.
3/7
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, would vehemently contend that, initially, the petitioner had paid a lease rental of Rs.300/- and after periodical increase, the lease rental of the year 2022 was Rs.1200/-. He would further submit that the petitioner had been paying Rs.1200/- from the Fasali year 1426 which according to him correlates to the year 2017. Hence, he would submit that even assuming Rs.200/- increased per year given for the last 7 years, it would be increased at Rs.1400/- and adding the same to the petitioner's payment for the year 2020, it would be more than Rs.2500/- and therefore seek dismissal of the Writ Petition and the same is without merits.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the lands belong to the third respondent Temple. The lands have been leased to the petitioner in the year 2002 for the period of 20 years and he has paid the annual rents. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed heavy reliance on Rule 6(2) of the Religious Institutions (Lease of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963. For better appreciation, relevant rule is extracted hereunder:
4/7
"6. Authority to conduct the election.- ......
(2) Where the lease is in respect of property or rights of a religious institution, the rental of which for the previous fasli year did not exceed Rs. 200/-, the auction may, with previous permission of the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, be conducted by an employee of the religious institution concerned specially deputed for the purpose by the executive authority. Such deputation of an employee shall not absolve the executive authority of his responsibility for the proper conduct of the auction of the lease."
7. The said rule only envisage that if the value of lease rental is less than Rs.200/- in the previous year for the property, then with the permission of the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, the auction can be conducted by an employee of the religious institutions by special deputation for the purpose. The said rule is only an exception to sub rule 6(1) which had envisaged the officers who can conduct the auction. Rule 6(2) of the said Rules, enables the authorities to permit a person who had not been named in sub rule (1) to conduct the auction and not as pleaded by the petitioner. The petitioner had not made any other grounds to assail the impugned tender notification.
5/7
8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 04.11.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr To:
The Additional Commissioner, O/o. the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy - 620 001.
6/7
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Nsr 04.11.2024 7/7