Madras High Court
S.Sangiliyandi vs The Commissioner on 22 July, 2022
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.8090 of 2022
S.Sangiliyandi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Thakkar/The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Paravai Annam Katharuliya Swamy Thirukoil,
Puthupalayam,
Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Rajapalayam.
5.The Inspector of Police,
South Police Station,
Rajapalayam.
(R4 and R5 have been impleaded
vide order dated 10.06.2022) ...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 relating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022
to the order dated 21.04.2022 on the file of the respondent No.3, terminating
the lease granted to the petitioner by public auction and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Prakash
For R1, R2, R4 & R5 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.P.Mahendran
Standing Counsel
ORDER
In continuation and conjunction with the earlier orders passed by this Court on 10.06.2022, the following order is passed. The earlier order is hereunder:-
“The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken the lands of the Arulmighu Paravai Annam Katharuliya Swamy Thirukoil, Puthupalayam, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District for three years lease in S.Nos.717/1 and 717/2 of 7 acres and 78 cents. The petitioner was making preparation for carrying out agricultural activities. Later, during March 2022, he came to know that in the temple leased land, there has been 100 feet length, 150 feet breadth and 10 feet depth of soil removed for the purpose of brick chambers use by one Sakthivel Chettiar, Kannan and Justin by using JCB and also transporting it by nine Tractors.
2. Immediately, the petitioner sent a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam on 24.03.2022, but no action has been taken. Thereafter, he informed the third respondent about the theft of soil. This being the case, the petitioner received a show cause https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022 notice on 02.04.2022 as though petitioner indulged in sand theft. The petitioner sent a detailed reply on 08.04.2022. On 21.04.2022, the petitioner was shocked to receive the cancellation of lease from the third respondent.
3. On his complaint, police so far not taken any action. The petitioner, in his complaint named the accused and given their particulars. For what reason, the police not taken action not known. On the other hand, the third respondent canceled the lease deed, alleging petitioner indulged in sand theft is not proper.
4. The learned standing counsel for the third respondent submits that one Madasamy, temple employee informed the third respondent about the petitioner and others involved in sand theft. Based on which, a complaint was lodged to the Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Rajapalayam. They taken all steps to register the case against the offenders. In the meanwhile, it was found that the petitioner along with the others have committed sand theft. Hence, the show cause notice was issued and the petitioner sent a reply for the same but the petitioner not sought for any personal hearing. Since the reply was not satisfactory and found that the petitioner indulged in sand theft, the lease of the land was cancelled. He further submitted that by removing such huge quantity of soil for commercial use, the petitioner made the land useless and unfit for agricultural activities.
5. After following procedure of law, this Court finds that huge quantity of soil (100 X 150 X 10) from the temple lands removed by the offenders, which cannot be committed in one day. The petitioner himself had given particulars about the offenders. The third respondent has also lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Rajapalayam but so far no action was taken. A further complaint was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022
6. In view of the same, this Court suo motu impleads the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam and the Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Rajapalayam as respondents 4 and 5. Both the police officials and Thakkar of the temple to inform this Court, what steps taken on the complaint of the petitioner and to file a status report.
7. The Special Government Pleader is directed to inform the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam and the Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Rajapalayam about this case.
8. List this case on 30.06.2022.”
2.It is seen that now the First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.212 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and Section 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it reads as under:-
“8. The 3rd respondent further submitted that while so, one of the employee of the third respondent temple namely Madasamy gave a letter to the third respondent on 31.03.2022 whereby he stated that the writ petitioner is indulged in illegal transport of sand in huge quantities from the said punja lands to out side for sale and for his illegal enrichment more fully to the brick manufacturing units (100 X 150 X 10). After receipt of the said letter, the third respondent has lodged a criminal complaint with the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, in person on 31.03.2022 for taking necessary action against the writ petitioner and some unknown persons who are involved in the illegal transporting of sand from the temple property. Besides the above complaint, the third respondent also gave a complaint before the Tahsildar, Puthupalayam https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022 also. Besides the third respondent also given an online complaint to the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station in connection with the illegal transportation of sand by the writ petitioner on 04.04.2022.
9. The 3rd respondent further submitted that after coming to know of the illegal acts committed by the writ petitioner the third respondent has issued a show cause notice in accordance with law vide his proceedings dated 02.04.2022 calling for the explanation of the petitioner in connection with the theft of the sand from temple lands. The writ petitioner has submitted his explanation on 08.04.2022 by raising frivolous and baseless allegations and denied the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that after receipt of such explanation, the third respondent having not satisfied with the said explanation came to a conclusion that the writ petitioner has committed theft of the sand in large quantities from the temple lands that too with prior knowledge and thus illegally enriched himself. It is also clear that the writ petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the tender auction as well as the work order issued in his favour. Hence considering the interests of the temple lands and also to protect the same, the third respondent has terminated the licence granted in favour of the writ petitioner vide proceedings dated 21.04.2022. Thus it is seen there are no illegalities in the issuance of the said order of termination of licence of the writ petitioner and the same is legal in the eye of law and the said order has been issued after following various procedures and in accordance with law.
10. The 3rd respondent further submitted that in so far as the averments that the writ petitioner has no knowledge about the theft of the temple land, they are nothing but highly imaginary. Such averments are made only to escape from the clutches of law for his illegal deeds. In fact such act of theft cannot be done in a single day and such theft is continuing since last so many days and that too with the knowledge of the writ petitioner. As per the tender conditions and work order the writ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022 petitioner is duty bound to ensure that there are no sand theft in respect of the temple lands. Further it is submitted that in view of such illegal acts of the writ petitioner, the valuable above said punja lands of the temple are not being utilised for any purposes. It is further submitted that for above said all illegal acts, it is only the writ petitioner who is entirely responsible.”
3.The 5th respondent has also filed a status report, wherein it has been stated as follows:-
“4. The 5th respondent submits that it is seen that petitioner is the successful lease holder of the agricultural land situated in Survey No. 717/1, 717/2 admeasure about 7 acres 76 cents for carrying out agricultural activities from Arulmighu Paravai Annam Katharuliya Swamy Thirukkoil, Puthupalayam, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District for a period of three years. While so, on 24.03.2022 the above said temple employee namely Madasamy had informed this petitioner that from the above said lands sand has been theft. Therefore, the petitioner has inspected the land and gave the complaint to the fourth respondent stating that one Mr.Sakthivel Chettiar, Kannan and Justin had illegally transported the sand from his leased out land. Subsequently, on 04.04.2022 the third respondent also made a complaint through online on the sand theft made in the above said temple against the petitioner.
5. The 5th respondent submits that therefore summons were issued to the petitioner as well as the alleged above said persons on 26.06.2022 to appear before us on 28.06.2022 and they had also duly appeared before me and stated that all the persons had bought sand from one Palpandi and gave sum of Rs.20,000/- each to him for the said transportation of sand and their statements were duly recorded before this respondent office.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022
6. The 5th respondent submits that a detailed investigation has been held by this respondent and it was found that Mr.Sakthivel, Raja Kannan and Justing who were having their own brick klin used to purchase sand and other materials only from the Arasappan Blue Metals, Puthur. However, for the past three months ie., on the period of sand theft the above said persons did not have any transactions with them and it was seen that the above said persons who are having their won brick klin had bought sand and other articles from one Palpandi for the past three months. Under these circumstances, it is found that the above said Palpandi had illegally took the sands from the above said lands and transported it to the above said persons i.e., to each brick klin owners a ten loads of sand totally to a tune of 30 loads of sand between midnight 11P.M. to 6 A.M. through his tractor and it was alleged that said Palpandi had theft the sands from the above said Survey Nos.717/1, 717/2 belongs to Arulmighu Paravai Annam Katharuliya Swamy Thirukkoil, Puthupalayam, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.”
4.The 4th respondent adopts the submission of the 5th respondent.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 would submit that the temple leased out the property. The 3rd respondent had already given the temple land by way of tender to the petitioner, who had misused the same, caused damage to the properties permanently. The damage is such that, the land is now made unusable for agricultural activities. The 3rd respondent was advised to take https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022 appropriate action against the petitioner, to file a police complaint against the petitioner and others. Now, a case has been registered. Further, it is submitted that the lease to the petitioner cancelled by the 3rd respondent, which is justifiable and proper.
6.This Court finds no merit on the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner finding that the petitioner is involved in the criminal offence that too committing of theft of temple land's soil and now, the temple property had been damaged, which cannot be rectified that easily, it would take some time and the temple to incur expenditure to restore the land usable for agricultural activities.
7.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. The 3rd respondent is directed to evict the petitioner and in case, the possession is not handed over by the petitioner, the respondents 4 and 5 are directed to aid the 3rd respondent to evict the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 22.07.2022
Internet : Yes/ No
mm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/10
W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Virudhunagar.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam.
4.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Rajapalayam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
mm W.P(MD).No.11360 of 2022 22.07.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10