Madras High Court Palanichamy vs The Commissioner on 22 August, 2016 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.08.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P(MD)No.12245 of 2016 and WMP(MD)Nos.9334 & 9335 of 2016 Palanichamy ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Dindigul. 3.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai. 4.The Executive Officer, Sri Kambarayar Perumal Thiru Koil, Cumbum, Theni District. 5.The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records of the impugned notice, dated 29.08.2016 in Na.Ka.No.1795/20141/A3, issued by the 2nd Respondent, which was pasted in the Petitioner's house and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary. !For Petitioner : Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Sr.Counsel, For Mr.G.Vanjinathan For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, (R1 to R3 & R5) Spl.Govt.Pleader For Respondent4 : Mr.M.Karuppasamy Pandian :ORDER Heard both sides. 2. According to the Petitioner, their father had constructed a house in Door No.41, Mariamman Koil Street, Cumbum and they were residing there from time immemorial, for the past 61 years. Their father had also availed water tap connection to the house and the same stands in their father's name till date. They along with his brothers lived jointly in the aforesaid house, till the demise of their father. After that, the Petitioner along with his brother Kandasamy's family are residing in the aforesaid house. 3. The stand of the Petitioner is that his brother Kandasamy's son got appointed in a private Firm in Chennai and by last week of June, 2016, they went to Chennai together with his brother's family, with a view to settling him. When they returned on 11.07.2016, they shocked to see the impugned notice, which pasted in their house, in the name of one Jeganathan. When, the Petitioner had enquired about the same, he learnt that the Respondents had initiated eviction proceedings, against an imaginary person viz., one Jeganathan and in his name, they are trying to evict the Petitioner. 4. The categorical stand of the Petitioner is that no person in the name of Jeganathan resides there and they are residing in the same place from time immemorial. As a matter of fact, the Respondents are endeavouring to evict him without following the due process of Law, in the name of some third person. Furthermore, the Respondents had wantonly gave the address of their house in the impugned Notice, as No.41, Kambarayar Perumal Koil Street instead No.41, Mariamman Koil Street, as in village records. Also that, more or both are considered to be same in their locality as their street. 5. The clearcut plea of the Petitioner is that the Respondents' claim that they had categorised the aforesaid Jeganathan, as an encroacher, and had affixed the impugned Notice for eviction in their house, under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. That apart, the Respondents had not followed the procedures prescribed, under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and without conducting any enquiry had affixed impugned Notice, in their house, by fixing a date of eviction on 13.07.2016. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Second Respondent / Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Dindigul, dated 29.06.2016, is against the Law and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice because of the reason that the First Respondent had not initiated any proceedings, under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Further, he had not afforded any opportunity to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned Notice issued by the Second Respondent / Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Dindigul, is contrary to the plains words of Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 7. At this stage, it is represented on be