Madras High Court
S.Selvarani vs The Commissioner on 5 August, 2022
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Writ Petition (MD) No.22820 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.19116 and 19117 of 2017
S.Selvarani,
Chairman, Board of Trustees,
Arulmigu Muruga Ayyanar Temple,
Veerakudi,
Thiruchili Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Sivagangai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Virudhunagar.
4.V.Rakkavelar .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in pursuant to the
impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.876/2012/A1,
dated 06.12.2017 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkitachalapathy
For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.T.Thiraivam
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.T.Vadivelan
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the Chairman, Board of Trustees of Arulmigu Muruga Ayyanar Temple, Veerakudi, Thiruchili Taluk, Virudhunagar District, challenging the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 876/2012/A1, dated 06.12.2017, filed this Writ Petition.
2.The contention of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent indulged in several activities against the interest of the Temple. Further, on the complaint made to the respondents 1 to 3, the fourth respondent was suspended from the hereditary trustee of the Temple. When the Temple administration called for explanation from the fourth respondent, he has given evasive reply. Therefore, five charges were framed against the fourth respondent under Section 53(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ''the H.R. & C.E. Act'']. The fourth respondent refuted the charges by stating that the petitioner/S.Selvarani, one of the hereditary trustees, had, on her own, made complaints against him, his brother, so that they can be removed from the hereditary trusteeship and the petitioner can control the Temple as per her https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017 wish. The fourth respondent had not taken away the Temple properties. If any Temple properties identified in his name or in his father's name, the fourth respondent is ready to reconvey the same to the Temple. Further, he had also made allegations against the petitioner in collecting money for Kumbabishekam without issuing receipts. Further, the petitioner after taking over the charge as hereditary trustee, had acquired several properties and accumulated wealth.
3.Admittedly, the petitioner made allegations against the fourth respondent stating that the fourth respondent had obtained Pattas in the name of his father. Further, without informing the Temple, the fourth respondent had collected money from the temporary shops, auction of hair offerings, car parking, daily tickets, not accounted the same to the Temple account and thereby, caused loss to the Temple. Further, whenever the Hundial of the Temple is opened, he would demand that he should be given a share from the Hundial offerings. The fourth respondent had been filing several cases against the Trustee and the Temple Officials. The fourth respondent insisted that he should be made as Chairman, Board of Trustees. Further, charges were framed against the fourth respondent for not attending the Board of Trustees Meetings on several occasions. Further, making complaints against the other hereditary trustees and also against the officials, he had also filed cases in O.S.Nos.60 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017 1999, 79 of 2000 and 177 of 2001 against the interest of the Temple. Further, without giving any representation to the second respondent/Joint Commissioner, the fourth respondent had filed W.P.(MD)No.1185 of 2013 for a Mandamus as if he had sent a representation and the same was pending, which was later found to be false and actually, there was no such representation.
4.The first respondent had conducted an enquiry and finding that out of the five charges, three charges were proved against the fourth respondent. One of the proven charges is that the fourth respondent had not participated in the Trust Board Meetings and hence, he should be punished for dereliction of duty. Further, the fourth respondent filed false cases against the petitioner before the Court at Aruppukottai. Finding that three charges were proved, the first respondent had given an opportunity to the fourth respondent to correct himself. Further, considering the undertaking given by the fourth respondent that wherever any property is shown in the name of his father, he would reconvey the property and handover the same to the Temple authorities, his suspension was revoked on a condition that the fourth respondent within a period of three months to correct himself, participate in the Trust Board Meetings and further, he should co-operate with the other hereditary trustees for smooth functioning of the Temple. As regards his undertaking that he will https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017 reconvey the temple property, if it is identified that the same are standing in the name of the fourth respondent or on his father's name, it was ordered that he shall reconvey the property and also to take steps for change of Patta in favour of the Temple.
5.Considering the aforesaid aspects, the first respondent/Commissioner had revoked the suspension of the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, the revocation of the fourth respondent's suspension is a conditional revocation, which the fourth respondent failed to comply with. The petitioner has filed a revision in R.P.No.19 of 2015 before the Secretary to the Government, on 09.10.2015 against the order of the first respondent, which is still pending before the Government.
6.After revocation of the suspension order, the fourth respondent involved in printing of receipt books in the name of the Temple stating that whoever donates Rs.2,000/- for the Temple Kumbabishekam, their names will be inscribed in the inscription and the same will be installed in the Temple. Hence, a case in Crime No.11 of 2017 has been registered against the fourth respondent and four others for the offences under Sections 120-B, 416, 420, 468 and 34 I.P.C. The fourth respondent had filed W.P.(MD)No.4249 of 2017, seeking to permit him to discharge his duties as hereditary trustee of the Temple and to take appropriate action to elect the Managing Trustee of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017 said Temple in accordance with law. This Court, by order dated 06.09.2017, disposed of the said Writ Petition, directing the third respondent/Assistant Commissioner to complete the enquiry and pass necessary orders within a period of six weeks.
7.Thereafter, the third respondent, by his report in Na.Ka.No. 2372/15/A3, dated 27.10.2017, found that Veerakudi Revenue Village Patta Nos.439 and 468 stand in the name of the fourth respondent. Added to it, Patta Nos.193, 204, 210, 231, 239 and 241 are also stand in the name of the fourth respondent. From the 'A' Register, the third respondent/Enquiry Officer found that some of the Pattas are in the name of the fourth respondent's father and in the name of their relatives. In O.S.No.21 of 1926 as well as in A.S.No. 186 of 1977, it is recorded that the Temple owns vast tracts of lands. Now, no property is available with the Temple. The third respondent/Enquiry Officer had directed the Temple authorities to co-operate with the revenue authorities to identify the properties of the Temple and to take steps to retrieve the same. Thus, it is clear that the fourth respondent indulged in activities against the Temple. Thereafter, based on the enquiry report of the third respondent/Assistant Commissioner, the second respondent/Joint Commissioner in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.876/2012/A1, dated 06.12.2017, had revoked the suspension of the fourth respondent with certain conditions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
8.The second respondent/Joint Commissioner though gave a finding that the Temple earlier had 250 acres of land, the said land has now been transferred in the name of the individuals, for which, appropriate steps have to be taken. Further, he confirms the findings of the third respondent/Enquiry Officer that Patta No.373 for S.Nos.169/1, 206/1, 206/10 and 206/7 stand in the name of the fourth respondent's father. Likewise, the property in Patta Nos.193, 204, 210, 231, 239, 241, 439 and 468 stands in the name of the fourth respondent. The Civil Court, earlier, confirmed that all the properties in the Village belong to the Temple, which would lead to the conclusion that the Temple properties have now been changed in the name of the fourth respondent, his father and relatives. Thus, the second respondent/Joint Commissioner having found that the fourth respondent is holding the Temple properties and not handed over the same as per the conditional order passed by the second respondent/Joint Commissioner, ought to have suspended the fourth respondent. Aggrieved against the same, now, for this limited purpose, this Writ Petition has been filed.
9.Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner is the Chairman, Board of Trustee of Arulmigu Muraga Ayyanar Temple, Veerakudi, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District. The fourth respondent is the hereditary trustee, who https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017 was earlier suspended for misappropriation of the Temple properties. The Temple owned several properties in the Village. Now, all the properties have been changed in the names of others. Patta No.373 for S.Nos.169/1, 206/1, 206/10 and 206/7 stand in the name of the fourth respondent's father. Likewise, Patta Nos.439 and 468 stand in the name of the fourth respondent. These are the Temple properties as could be seen from the Civil Court's Judgment in O.S.No.21 of 1926 and A.S.No.186 of 1977. The fourth respondent, after revocation of his suspension in the year 2015, during Kumbabishekam in the year 2017, had printed receipt books in the name of the Temple and collected huge sums of money from several persons by giving promise that whoever offer a sum of Rs.2,000/-, their names will be inscribed in the inscription and the same will be installed in the Temple. Further, the fourth respondent had not re-conveyed any property and whenever notice is issued to him to reconvey the property either he would state that he would submit the documents before the Court through his Advocate and on the same breadth would state that he is not in possession of any of the documents. He was giving contradictory statements each time according to his convenience. The fourth respondent is acting against the interest of the Temple. The third respondent/Enquiry Officer/Assistant Commissioner confirms the same and thereafter, the second respondent/Joint Commissioner passed the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
10.Mr.T.Vadivelan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner has got personal rivalry against the fourth respondent even before the petitioner had been elected as Chairman, Board of Trustees and after assumption of office as Chairman, the petitioner lodged false complaints against the fourth respondent and also filed several cases against him. The only endeavour of the petitioner is that to somehow keep away the fourth respondent and his brother by making false charges from the hereditaryship, so that, the petitioner can enjoy the Office of the hereditaryship. The petitioner after elected as Chairman, Board of Trustees, had acquired several properties and amassed wealth. The fourth respondent was objecting to the same and also sending petitions in this regard. The third respondent/Enquiry Officer/Assistant Commissioner and the second respondent/Joint Commissioner confirmed in their reports that the petitioner is holding the chairmanship of the Board of Trust without any election for the past two decades or more. Even today, the fourth respondent is ready to reconvey if any property of the Temple is identified in his name or in his father's name.
11.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further submits that the fourth respondent has also given petitions to the District Collector, Virudhunagar, giving the particulars of documents to transfer Patta Nos.468, 193, 204, 210, 231, 239 and 241 of Veerakudi Village from his name to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017 name of the Temple. Based on the petitions received from the fourth respondent relating to change of Patta with regard to 10 properties, the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/3487/2019, dated 25.02.2019, sent a communication to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, for further action. Further, with regard to 5 properties, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/29/2019, dated 11.03.2019, sent a communication to the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli; the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/3489/2019, dated 29.03.2019, sent a communication to the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli, with regard to 2 properties; and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/93/2019, dated 08.04.2019, with regard to 3 properties, sent a communication to the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli, to take further action. The Tahsildar, Thiruchuli, by his letter dated 17.05.2019 in O.Mu.No.A5/2443/2019, confirmed the receipt of petitions from the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent having no parent document, had made a request to the first respondent and the second respondent/Joint Commissioner for the same, and it was forwarded to the petitioner and thereafter, there was no response. Thus, the fourth respondent is taking all steps to change the Patta in the name of the Temple. It is by the non-cooperation of the revenue and temple authorities, the same could not be done.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
12.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner as a Chairman, Board of Trustees has been taking earnest steps to retrieve the temple properties as could be seen from the Civil Court Judgment in O.S.No.21 of 1926 and A.S.No.186 of 1977 and also from the enquiry report of the third respondent/Assistant Commissioner. It is seen that there are around 250 acres of land belongs to the Temple in the Veerakudi Village. Now, no land stands in the name of the Temple. The revenue officials are also not co-operating in submitting the revenue records. That is the reason why, the Temple authorities are finding it difficult to retrieve the Temple properties and certain Pattas have been identified in the name of the fourth respondent and his father. The fourth respondent so far has not given any explanation how these properties have been acquired by him and come to his possession. On the other hand, he had at every instances, made a statement that he is willing to reconvey the property of the Temple wherever it has been identified as the Temple property. To his convenience, the fourth respondent has been taking a stand and the third respondent/Assistant Commissioner/Enquiry officer had clearly given a finding that the fourth respondent owns Temple lands. The fourth respondent had contrary to the conditional revocation of suspension order passed by the first respondent/Commissioner, so far not conveyed any land/property of the Temple. On the other hand, he had made applications to the revenue https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017 authorities and the revenue authorities had not acted upon, since there was no parent document produced. Thus, it is going vicious circle, one blaming the other. It is for the Temple authorities to co-operate with the revenue authorities to identify the Temple properties and the encroachers of the property, take steps to retrieve the properties of the Temple. As regards the fourth respondent, he himself has come forward and given details of the properties in his name and his father's name. This could not be correlated with revenue records due to non-cooperation. In view of the same, the first respondent/Commissioner is directed to appoint a Special Officer in the rank of Tahsildar available in the Headquarters to coordinate with the revenue officials of the Virudhunagar District, to identify the Temple properties and to retrieve and reclaim the same.
13.In view of the above, this Court is unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the second respondent/Joint Commissioner.
14.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
smn2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/14
W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/14 W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.22820 of 2017 05.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/14