1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.9876 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of 2011 Tmt.Lakshmiammal : Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development, Religious Endowments & Information Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Chennai. 3.The Settlement Officer, The Commissioner of Land Survey and Settlement Department, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 4.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Endowment and Religious Board, No.1, Mela Chithirai Street, Madurai. 5.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Endowment and Religious Board, No.1, East 1st Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai-20. 6.The Executive Officer, Thirumohur Kalamegaperumal Dewasthamanam, Thirumohur, Madurai. 7.V.Thiagarajan, President, Hindu Paktha Jana Sabai, 5, Sai Kiruba Illam, Joseph Nagar. 1st Cross Street, Thiru Nagar, Madurai-6. (R-7 impleaded as party respondent as per order of Court dated 13.10.2011 in M.P.No.4 of 2011) : Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in connection with the order passed by him in letter No.15475/A Ni.5.1/2004-2, dated 12.1.2005 and also the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Na.Ka.No.20614/2002 MI, dated 3.4.2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's rights of maintaining the private temple and the lands situated in Narasingam Village, Othakadai in Patta No.209 in S.No.159, 160, 163/2 measuring to an extent of 3.84 Hectares as per her will and wish and as per the order passed in O.A.No.162 of 1937 dated 6.10.1937 and also as per the order of the Commissioner of Land Survey and Settlement, Chennai-5, Proc. No.Na.Ka. E2/14974/2010 dated 31.1.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singgaravelan For Respondents-1 to 5 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader. For Respondent-6 : Mr.S.Manohar For Respondent-7 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging two orders, one dated 12.1.2005 by which the Government rejected the request of the petitioner to grant exemption to the Temple in question from the application of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1958 and another order dated 3.4.2009 issued by the Commissioner refusing to give no objection for the sale of the land. 2. Notice was ordered in the writ petition on 30.8.2011. Subsequently, an interim order of injunction was passed on 12.9.2011. 3. Thereafter, one Hindu Baktha Jana Sabha filed an application for impleading. In the meantime, the Government also filed an application for vacating the interim order of injunction. When the vacate injunction petition came up for hearing, on 10.10.2011, I passed the following orders: "The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time. Post on 13.10.2011. However, it is represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader that taking advantage of the interim order of injunction granted on 12.9.2011, the petitioner started putting up construction. Therefore, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not continue with the construction and shall not alienate or encumber the property and shall also not alter the physical features of the property until further orders. Post on 13.10.2011." 4. Subsequently, the matter came up on 29.10.2011 and the learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment, promising to argue the matter on 8.11.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5. However, an appeal was filed thereafter and a mention was made before the Division Bench for pulling this writ petition out of the list of this Court, by giving an impression that the writ petition is proposed to be withdrawn. But the Division Bench passed an order on 17.11.2011 as follows:- "This writ petition is delinked from the writ appeal No.1232 of 2011. The records disclose the matter was already pending before the learned single Judge and it is for the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition to move only before the learned single Judge and the same cannot be taken with the writ appeal pending before this Court. Hence, Registry is directed to post this writ petition before the concerned learned single Judge namely Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramasubramanian, on 18.11.2011." 6. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is withdrawing his appearance from the case. But the petitioner was present in Court along with one Mr.Sabari Babu claiming to be a person brought up by the petitioner. She wanted to withdraw the writ petition. She herself made an endorsement seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. Mr.Sabari Babu also sought liberty to move the Government. 7. But the following facts will disclose that the petitioner is not entitled to any liberty:- (i) Way back in the year 1937, an order was passed in O.A.No.162 of 1937, to the effect that the Temple in question comes within the purview of the HR&CE Department, though as an excepted Temple. (ii) All along the petitioner claimed to be a Hereditary Trustee of the Temple, without questioning the jurisdiction of the HR&CE Department. (iii) But suddenly the petitioner made two different pleas, one for granting exemption for the Temple from the application of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1958 and another for permission to sell the property as if it is her property. Both these requests go contrary to each other. 8. Today, the stand taken by the petitioner is that the HR&CE Department has nothing to do with the Temple and that the property is a private property. Thus, the stand taken today contradicts a settled position which is in existence for over 75 years. 9. The property is a very valuable property located just opposite to the High Court. Except finding that the attempt now made by the petitioner appears to be at the instance of some third parties for grabbing the land, I do not find any reason as to how the position settled for 75 years could be unsettled in a writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn after recording all the above facts and specifically rejecting the plea of the petitioner for liberty to work out her remedies elsewhere. The interim order passed by me restraining the petitioner from alienating or putting up any construction or altering the physical features of the property will continue to remain in force and it will be open to the Department to take appropriate action for taking control and preserving the property. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AS ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR Svn To 1.The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development, Religious Endowments & Information Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Chennai. 3.The Settlement Officer, The Commissioner of Land Survey and Settlement Department, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 4.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Endowment and Religious Board, No.1, Mela Chithirai Street, Madurai. 5.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Endowment and Religious Board, No.1, East 1st Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai-20. 6.The Executive Officer, Thirumohur Kalamegaperumal Dewasthamanam, Thirumohur, Madurai. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER, SR: 40649: 1CC TO MR. N. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE,SR: 40528: 1CC TO MR. S. MANOHAR, SR: 40697: 1CC TO MR. R. SINGARAVELAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 40723: DM:2011:NOVEMBER:21:: W.P.(MD)No.9876 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of 2011 18.11.2011 4P:11C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/