Madras High Court
Sadhu Srila Srikrishnaveni Amm vs The State Rep. By Its Secretary on 18 March, 2015
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.03.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.(MD)No.14410 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1/2013 & 1/2015
Sadhu Srila Srikrishnaveni Amm,al,
Annadhanam Trust,
Rep. by its Trustee Mr.D.Venkatesan,
kalyana Theertham, Agathiyar Falls,
Papanasam Lower Dam,
Ambasamudram ? 627 551. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Rep. by its Secretary,
Environment & Forest Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Forest Department,
Panagal Maligai,
Saidapet, Chennai ? 600 015.
3.The Chief Wildlife Warden,
Deputy Director,
Mundantharai Wildlife Sanctuary,
Mookoodal, Ambasamudram ? 627 401,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E.,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Project Officer,
Mundantharai Wildlife Sanctuary,
Mookoodal, Ambasamudram ? 627 401,
Tirunelveli District.
6.The Ranger,
Tamil Nadu Forest Department,
Papanasam,
Tirunelveli District.
7.S.Gopal
(R7-Impleaded as per order dated
08.07.2014 in MP.No.2/2013)
8.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Papanasa Swami Thirukovil,
Papanasam, Ambasamudram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
(R8-Impleaded as per order dated
08.07.2014 in MP.No.1/2014)
9.Thamiraparani Kalyana Theertham Chastity Trust
Represented by its Secretary, S.Murugan,
13/258, Narayanasamy Kovil Street,
Ambalavanapuram, Vikramasinkapuram,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
(R9-Impleaded as per order dated
13.10.2014 in MP.No.2/2014)
Prayer
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to break
open the lock put up by the sixth respondent and to permit the petitioner to
carry out all the religious and charitable activities in kalyana Theertham,
Papanasam Lower Dam, Ambasamudram left behind by Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal in
that place.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman
For Respondents : Mr.G.Muthukanna (for R1 to R6)
Government Advocate
Mr.T.Arul (for R7)
Mr.H.Arumugam (for R8)
Mr.M.Saravanan (for R9)
:ORDER
The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner submits that the public trust was established under a registered trust deed Documents No.100/2011 dated 06.07.2011 as per last Will of Late Sri La Sri Sahdhu Krishnaveni Ammal who died on 17.04.2011. The said Sri La Sri Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal had executed a Will dated 29.07.2009 registered with Document No.63/2009 wherein she has expressed her last Will and wish to continue for more than four decades at kalyana Theertham, Papanasam Lower Dam, Ambasamudram through the petitioner's trust. He submits that kalyana Theertham is considered to be a sacred place in that region since Agasthiyar the Tamil Sage stayed there. There are two idols of Sivan and Sakthi which are believed to be more than 1000 years old. Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal came to this place 60 years ago and stayed there till her death on 17.04.2011.
2.He submits that Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal added sanctity to this place by building a temple around the idols and they are worshipped by the people. The deities are Logayanaki Samedha Kottilingeswarar. Along with the religious activity Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal also carried out Annadhanam for the Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal also carried out Annadhanam for the Sadhus and the devotees coming to the place. She stayed in the place and did not come out of it for more than 4 decades. Her religious and Madham activities were approved by the respondents 2 and 3 at several instances. It is borne on record that the respondents 2 and 3 have accorded permission to construct the Sadhu Madham at the said kalyana Theertham. Even the revenue records establish that the Sadhu Madham as has been for payment of Tax by revenue authorities. He submits that while so the respondent after the death of Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal, started to obstruct the petitioner from carrying out the religious activities and Annadhanam in that place as per the last wishes of Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal. It is pertinent to note that even the petitioner had formed as per the direction and will of the Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal. Inspite of which the respondents are obstructing the religious as well the charitable activities done by the petitioner trust following in the foot steps of Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal.
3.He further submits that it had also filed a petition under Section 64(1) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act before the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli, the fourth respondent, for providing a scheme to administer and carryout the rituals at the above stated temple. However the petitioner is obstructed by the first, second and third respondents from carrying out the Math activities in that place. The respondents have also started manhandling the Sadhus and inmates in the Math in the recent times. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 28.07.2011 to respondents to allow the petitioner to carry out the Math activities. However the respondents by its letter dated 29.08.2011 have denied permission to the petitioner from carrying out the rituals performed by the Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal at that place. He submits that aggrieved by the above order the petitioner filed the writ petition No.11880 of 2011 for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter Na.Ka.No.4748/2011/VA dated 29.08.2011 quash the same and direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to carry out all the religious and charitable activities in kalyana Theertham, Papanasam Lower Dam, Ambasamudram left behind by Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal in that place. The writ petition is pending.
4.He submits that the M.P.No.2 of 2013 was ordered on 06.03.2013 with the following direction:
?3.The writ petition was filed challenging the above order and the same is pending before this Court and the parties have also filed counter affidavit and a third party filed impleading application which was allowed and the third party also impleaded as fifth respondent. Apart from that the Executive Officer, Arulmighu Papanasaswami Thirukoil, Papanasam, has also been impleaded as the sixth respondent.
4.Now the petitioner in this application seeks for a positive direction to permit them to conduct poojas on those two days during night time. No such relief can be granted to the petitioner since it would amount to allowing the writ petition itself at the interim stage which is not permissible. As long as the validity of the impugned order has not been decided in the writ petition, the prayer sought for in this miscellaneous petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Needless to state that if the petitioner had conducted similar poojas during 2011 and 2012, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the respondents 2 and 3 for necessary relief.?
5.He submits that thereafter he made a representation on 08.03.2013 to the second and third respondents enclosing the copy of the order dated 06.03.2013 and stated interalia the following:-
?We wish to submit that Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal had been performing and celebrating the Mahashiva Rathri festival at Kalyana Theertham for the past five decades.
After her attaining heavenly abroad we have been conducting the Mahashiva Rathri festival at the Mutt premises at Kalyana Theertham. We filed the above writ petition seeking some relief from the forest department. The writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench since 2011. Meanwhile we filed a Miscellaneous Petition seeking directions from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench to grant permission to perform the Mahashivarathri Poojas for this year. The Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 6th August 2013 have directed to approach you for the permission to conduct the Maha Shivarathri Poojas.
Therefore in compliance of the above order we are submitting this representation requesting your good office to grant permission for us to conduct MahaShivarathri Pooja at Kalyana Theertham on the 9th and 10th March 2013.
The copy of the order issued by the Hon'ble High Court is enclosed herewith for your favourable consideration.
6.He submits that in the mean time the third respondent and the sixth respondent have locked the mutt without any notice. He perform poojas everyday and Annathanam to the poor people. The action of the third and sixth respondents is highly arbitrary and illegal. Aggrieved by the illegal action of the third and sixth respondents locking the mutt without any notice with effect from 20.07.2013, the petitioner approaches this Hon'ble Court for the issue of writ of Mandamus. Hence, this writ petition.
7.The fifth respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the place mentioned in the petition Kalyanatheertham is situated in the Papanasam forest range which is part of Papanasam reserve forest which was notified under Madras Forest Act 1882 in 1890. The said reserved forest is also a part of KalakadMundanthurai tiger reserve which was declared in 1988. The petitioner had stated that the public trust was established under the registered trust deed documents No.100/2011 dated 06.07.2011 after the death of Sri Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal as per the last WILL which was registered on 29.07.2009 in document No.63/2009. At this juncture, it is submitted that one cannot right a WILL on a property which does not belong to that particular individual. In this case none of the property belongs to her and the area is a core area of the tiger reserve. Hence the validity of the WILL fails to the core. He submits that the petitioner Thiru.D.Venkatesan has filed false petition by stating averments like the respondents were not permitting him to Sadhu Krishnaveni Mutt. In the said Court order itself no exclusive right was given to the petitioner except what was allowed for the general public. This Court order dated 20.02.2014 speak about the provision made for the general public to visit the place Kalyanatheertham within the prescribed time. It does not mention any right of any individual person on Sadhu Krishnaveni Amma mutt. Actually she herself was staying there unofficially, this being so, no person is entitled to do any kind of charitable activity in that place which is basically a tiger reserve that receives highest degree of protection. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to pass the judgment in favour of the Department.
But the petitioner is trying to misguide the Hon'ble High Court by taking the name of Sadhu Krishnaveni Amma mutt for which he does not have any stake/right over this place.
8.In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner has demanded to break open the lock put by the respondents and permit the petitioner to carry out all the religious and charitable activities in Kalyanatheertham, in the place left behind by Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal. In this connection, it is submitted that, the said place comes under Papanasam reserve forest area declared in the year 1890. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.2556 Food and Agriculture Department dated 02.08.1962, Papanasam Reserve Forest, Mundanthurai and Singampatti Ex-Zamin forest was declared as ?Sanctuary for Tiger?. The said reserved forest is also a part of Kalakad Mundanthurai tiger reserve which was declared in 1988. Further as per G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 28.12.2007 the entire 895 Sq. Km. comprising Kalakad Sanctuary and Singampatti Ex-Zamin forests and Mundanthurai sanctuary including the Papanasam reserve forests was declared as Core area of the Tiger reserve and Critical Tiger Habitat. No person is entitled for any exclusive right over this place except the common right mentioned in the reserve forest notification as below:-
?The situation is that of the Papanasam falls in the Tamiraparani river, about 24 chains from the Agastiyar Temple.
2. An area of 1 acre 88 cents comprising the falls and pool is allowed to be used. It contains no buildings but there are images cut on the rocks.
3. The right is for men only and the place may be visited by daylight alone.
4. Access is by a path 6 feet broad, in continuation of that to the Agastiyar temple notified in Notification No.136 of 1912, published at pages 344-345 of Part I of the Fort. St. George Gazette, dated 26th March 1912, passing along the margin of the left bank of the river?.
9.It is submitted that from the above Notification it is very much clear that there was no buildings except few images engraved on the rock. The right of way has been granted to a width of 6 feet from Agastiyar Temple to bathing place to a distance of 24 chains. In the above notification it is clearly mentioned as in the Kalyanatheertham right of way was demarcated for bathing area, and right is only for men. Nowhere, no rights were conferred on Sadhu Krishnaveni Amma as mentioned by the petitioner. It is to submit that, in the letter written by the then Chief Conservator and Field Director, KMTR on Na.ka.4748/2011/Va 29.08.2011, it was mentioned people can go to KalyanaTheertham between 6 am to 6 pm as mentioned in the Papanasam reserve forest notification and no individual can claim any right over any structures in the name of Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal as there was no right conferred to her. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 20.02.2014 by stating same statements written by the respondents. Hence, it is submitted that, to prevent the misuse of the place which is basically a tiger reserve which receives highest degree of protection, the Forest Department has locked the premises on 20.07.2013 to protect this area that comes under core area of the tiger reserve, GO.No.Ms.145 (E&F) dated 28.12.2007. Further the petitioner is trying to use the said place for commercial activities in the name of Sadhu Krishnaveni Amma Charitable Trust.
10.Further, it is submitted that the respondents have already given a reply to the Chief Minister's cell petition filed by the petitioner. In that reply dated 29.08.2011, it was mentioned by the respondents that no charitable trust is applicable for this Tiger Reserve, and no charitable activity is allowed inside Tiger Reserve, and further unauthorized stay of Sadhu Krishnaveni Amma is not recognized by anywhere and her stay itself was unlawful and illegal. Therefore, any WILL executed by her becomes null and void. Further no individual can claim any exclusive right over this place. The area belongs to the Forest Department and it is the Tiger Reserve. Hence, to ensure the protection of the kalyanatheertham the Department has locked the premises. Therefore, the petitioner's claim is unreasonable and unjustifiable. With view of the above, it is to submit that this Court also was pleased to pass an order on W.P.No.11880 of 2011 dated 20.02.2014, in that order the respondent's reply given to the petitioner dated 29.08.2011 was upheld and judgment was in favour of the Department. Hence, the petitioner does not have any exclusive right over that place except the common right applicable for the general public. In view of the above, it is prayed before this Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits.
11.The seventh respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that at the threshold this writ petition is liable to be rejected for suppressing material facts with out disclosing the undertaking given by the petitioner before the peace committee meeting conducted by the district administration and the petitioner is a stranger whose actual residence is Chennai and is trying to convert the reserved forest area in and around Kalyana Theertham holy place as a tourist spot and acting inimical to the interest of local villages, devotees, sanniyasis and to the ecology. The writ petitioner who is not having any semblance of right whatsoever in the reserved forest area is trying to create a right through created, bogus and spurious documents by means of his influence, money and muscle power. Regarding the execution of Will by Sri.Sadhu Krishnaveniammal and the further averments contained in paragraphs-3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit as regards the mutt activities does not reflect the facts in its true perspective and are stoutly denied. Kalyana Theertham holy place and the surrounding areas come with in Mundandhurai reserved forest area and the temples therein are under the control of H.R. & C.E. Department. To cater to the needs of pilgrims and devotees the forest department granted permission to the H.R. & C.E. Department long time back to put up a path way leading to Kalyana Theertham holy place from Papanasam main temple.
12.He submits that Sadhu SriKrishnaveni Ammal who was a Sanyasam was residing there with the permission of the forest department long time back, considering her stature as a Sadhu. As a saadhu who had renounced the worldly affairs and means, Srikrishnaveni Ammal lived under his care and protection and the offering of the devotees and she had no income of her own. He submits that during her last days, he took her to Chennai for medical treatment and at that point of time she was suffering from amnesia and senility for nearly five years prior to her death. Sadhu Srikrishnaveni Ammal never owned any properties nor she was having any rights in the reserved forest area and all the activities in and around Kalyana Theertham holy place was done only with the permission and control of forest department and H.R. & C.E. Department.
13.He submits that Srikrishnaveni Ammal was never in a sound state of mind for nearly five years prior to her death and the writ petitioner is trying to create a right through created and spurious documents which are untenable under law. In fact, at the time of execution of alleged Will deed she was aged more than 105 years and the petitioner who hails from Chennai and who visited Kalyana Theertham in the garb of a pilgrim, now under the strength of the said Will deed executed under questionable and suspicious circumstances is trying to create and assert a non-existent right inside a reserved forest area coming within Mundandurai Tiger reserve forest for extraneous considerations. The petitioner with a view to justify his illegal act has included the local persons including him in the alleged fictitious will deed on his own with a view to gain support and pacify the locals to support his illegal acts for the purpose of creating rights inside the reserve forest. Some of the persons in the will deed as well as in the Trust deed were setup by the petitioner and others were included without their consent to create a right. He further states that the petitioner is not at all having residence at Papanasam as alleged and as sworn in the affidavit and the petitioner has falsely sworn the residence as Papanasam for the purpose of the case. In fact, the petitioner is a businessman and is the proprietor of ?Sai Electricals? situated at water tank road, Ayanawaram, Chennai.
14.He submits that because of the writ petitioner and some other commercial minded people who acted inimical to the interest of local villages, devotees, sanniyasis and to the ecology with the help of some fictitious documents law and order problem aroused a peace committee meeting which was conducted on 02.06.2011 by the Thasildhar and a notice was issued to him by the Executive Officer of Papanasam koil temple and to others. In the said peace committee meeting the writ petitioner agreed that he will not create any trouble and accepted that the temple and surrounding area belong to the Government but contra to the undertaking this writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner suppressing the real facts. In fact various panchayats in an around Kalyana Theertham holy place have passed resolutions condemning the illegal acts of the writ petitioner and requested the forest department and H.R. & C.E. Department to regulate and manage the affairs and an F.I.R. was also registered against the associates and accomplices of the writ petitioner for creating trouble. After the peace committee meeting resolution on 02.06.2011 the petitioner had also created the fictitious Trust deed to justify his illegal acts.
15.He submits that the revenue records and other documents relied on by the petitioner are created for the purpose of the case and will not bestow any right or title over the reserved forest area in Kalyana Theertham. The Tax receipts and Ration card filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.11880 of 2011 were created to establish a fictitious right in the reserved forest near Kalyana Theertham and infact as per the extract from Vickramasingapuram Municipal Records Door No.118 stands in the name of TMBS (Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service) bus company. The created records can be clearly established by the different address in the tax receipts, Ration card, extracts from the Vickramasingapuram Municipality records, certificate from Vickramasingapuram Municipality and the information provided under the Right to Information Act for Sadhu Madam.
16.He submits that the averments contained in paragraph-6 of the affidavit are devoid of truth and the contentions raised therein are untenable under law or on facts and are denied. In so far as the averments made by the petitioner that he had filed a petition under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act before the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli for providing scheme to administer and to carry out rituals therein is concerned, he states that the said application filed before the fourth respondent is not at all maintainable under law or on facts and the petitioner by abusing the process of law is trying to create a right in favour of him detrimental to the interest of the devotees and the ecology over a Reserved Forest area. He submits that in so far as the averments as regards the carrying out of the mutt activities in the holy place, it is submitted that the petitioner had no right to conduct any activities by virtue of the alleged questionable Will Deed and because of the activities of the petitioner, the sanctity of the abode of great Siddhars in the said area is affected which had also led to law and order problem. He further states that in spite of stiff resistance from the localities and devotees, the petitioner is trying to carry forward his activities with commercial motives.
17.The petitioner suppressing the material facts and the peace committee resolution moved a writ petition in W.P.No.11880 of 2011 and this Court was not inclined to admit the writ petition and after elaborate arguments on 08.11.2012 the petitioners sought time for withdrawal of the writ petition as this Court was not inclined to admit it. Thereafter cunningly the petitioner dragged on the matter and also having failed to get any favourable order in the miscellaneous petition finally submitted before the Court that he was willing to abide by the directions of Deputy Director / Wildlife warden, Ambasamuthram vide enquiry dated 19.03.2013 which is in consonance of the impugned order passed by Chief Conservator of Forest and Deputy Director of Tiger sanctuary in Na.Ka.No.4748/2011/Va dated 29.08.2011 in W.P.No.11880 of 2011, permitting pilgrims to worship in Kalyana Theertham. This Court recorded the submissions of the petitioner and closed the writ petition. The operative portion of the order in W.P.No.11880 of 2011 dated 29.08.2011 is extracted below:
?the impugned order further says that all are entitled to go to Kalyana Theertham only for worship and for doing Annadanam.
2.However, when the writ petition was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the communication addressed by the Principal Chief Conservative Officer, to Special Officer and Chief Minister Cell by way of reply to the petition filed by one Durai Venkatesan, who is the petitioner herein as if an enquiry was conducted on 09.03.2013 regarding the petition received from Durai Venkatesan and it was decided to allow the Pilgrim to prayer in the area of Kalyanatheertham from 6.00 a.m., to 6.00 p.m. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of such order, no further relief is necessary in this writ petition and the writ petition may be closed by recording the contents of the reply.
3.The fifth respondent individual claiming himself to be the public spirited representative raised serious objection against conducting any religious charitable activities in the area in dispute. However, this Court after hearing both sides, considered that this Court in the writ jurisdiction need not have gone into the dispute between the parties.
4.But this Court having recorded the statement made on behalf of the petitioner, regarding the subsequent development considered that of the view no further order is necessary in this writ petition and this Court without going into the correctness of such a statement made by the petitioner is inclined to close the writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly closed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.?
18.The petitioner herein have been conducting MahaSivarathiri festival at the Mutt premises are not true and are denied. He states that the petitioner tried to usurp the properties near Kalyana Theertham and tried to create a right as if he was conducting Pooja's which is not true. The temple in Kalyana Theertham under the control of H.R. & C.E. and regular pooja's were conducted and the temple is managed by H.R. & C.E. The third and sixth respondents locked the Mutt without any notice and that the petitioners perform pooja's everyday and Annadhanam to the poor people is devoid of truth and are stoutly denied. The petitioner is neither a Poojari nor a Sadhu and he is doing sound service business at Chennai and he is trying to augment his business activities at Kalyana Theertham. The petitioner with the help of one make shift Poosari by name Arumugam tried to encroach the temple premises at Kalyana Theertham and tried to conduct pooja's in the temple by trying to enter into the sanctum sanatorium where the deities Vana Durga, Sripairavar and Vanapechiamma were situated. Infact the petitioner's henchman Arumugam at the instance of the petitioner tried to encroach area near the temple premises by putting barbed wire fence and indulged in antisocial activities by resorting to Goondaism. The said Arumugam was booked for the offence he committed under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and he paid a fine of Rs.2,000/- by accepting his guilt. That the respondents are obstructing the religious and charitable activities of the petitioner arbitrarily and illegally is without any basis and the petitioner has no right in the holy place coming within the reserved forest area.
19.As regards the obstruction of the petitioner activities against the principal of natural justice and the ground regarding the carrying out of religious and charitable activities claiming to be the successor are liable to be rejected for the reasons assigned supra. The petitioner cannot claim to be a successor of a renowned yogi Sadhu Krishnaveniammal and the Sadhu was permitted by the Forest Department inside the forest area considering her Stature as Saathu. Saathu Krishnaveniammal renounced the whole world and had no permanent abode or private property on her own whereas the petitioner is a businessman, materialist and he is doing business and is the proprietor of ?Sai Electricals? situated at Water tank road, Ayanawaram, Chennai. That the petitioner is endeavoring to continue the religious and charitable activities done by the Saathu Krishnaveniammal and he has no intention to deviate into other activities are not true and are denied. The petitioner with commercial motives and hidden agenda is trying to create a right and his claim is liable to be rejected.
20.He submits that in the averment there are several tenements in the same sanctuary above Kalyana Theertham is not true and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. He states that the private tenements and Patta lands were clearly demarcated from the reserved forest area and even if there are any illegal tenements or encroachments in the forest area those illegal tenements or encroachments are bad in law and they have to be evicted. There are also some tribal and forest dwellers inside the forest area who are dwelling in some portion in the forest area from times immemorial. The petitioner who is a business man from Chennai cannot cite that to gain entry into reserved forest with an ulterior motive. Moreover, the petitioner cannot take defense and create a right by claiming and comparing with any illegal means. He submits that the petitioner is not a representative representing any religious institution or projecting the aspiration of devotees and the petitioner is not at all entitled to any relief as sought for. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to accept this counter affidavit and dismiss the writ petition.
21.The eighth respondent had filed counter affidavit stating that it is further submitted that first, the petitioner should establish the right of said Sadhu Srila Sri Krishnaveni Ammal over the property, which admittedly belongs to the Government and her right to execute the Will. It is settled law that the Will has to be proved in accordance with ?Section 68? of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and ?Section 65? of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It is to submit that the petitioner has no vested right to direct the respondents to break open the lock. In fact, this respondent in exercise of his statutory power has passed an order dated 01.06.11, prohibiting the petitioner and others from doing any activities of Abishekam, Aradhanai and Annadhanam and the same is still in force, without challenge by anyone.
Hence, filing of the present writ petition is a clear case of abuse of process of law. The petitioner has violated the statutory order and seeking the relief before this Hon'ble Court, which shows the conduct of the petitioner, to grab the property by hook or by crook.
22.It is to submit that the alleged petition filed under Section 64(i) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is not maintainable, since no one can claim the property belonging to the Forest and HR & CE Department on the basis of self-served documents executed and created between private parties. This respondent is an authority appointed under the provisions of H.R. & C.E. Act to administer the affairs of the institution, but without impleading the Executive Officer the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.11880/11, hence this respondent filed impleading petition and the same was allowed on 28.02.13. In spite of the fact, even in the present writ petition the Executive Officer was not added as party with an evil intention to get back an order behind the back of appropriate authority. It shows the conduct of the petitioner in abusing the process of Court and as such this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
23.It is to submit that kalyanaTheertham is a consecrated place, where the deities namely, Lord KodiLingheswarar and LoganayakiAmmal have their sanctum and sanctorum. Originally, the images were only on the design cutting on the rock and beneath the kalyana Theertham, the Temple namely, Agathiyar Koil is situated. The said area is a reserved Forest and the HR & CE Department was permitted to maintain the Temple and the kalyana Theertham and the public was allowed to use the Agasthiyar Falls as a holy bathing place. The Temple and the kalyana Theertham are under the control of HR & CE Department and the same comes under the jurisdiction of the 8th respondent.
24.It is prudent to submit that the Forest Department has granted permission to the HR &CE Department to carry out the repairs and renovation of the above said temple and holy Theertham, perodically and the said works are being carried out from and out of the offerings and donations from the public and also with the fund of the department. No individual had any right over the site and the same belongs to the Government which comes under the Reserved Forest and the Temple and building absolutely belongs to the HR & CE Department.
25.It is to submit that one Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal was an orphan, came to the above said Kalyana Theertham about 55 years back and settled there. Though nobody was allowed to stay over night in the said Theertham, the said Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal was allowed to stay by doing Pooja for the deities in the Temple considering that she was a lady and an orphan. The said Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal had never claimed any independent right during her lifetime and she had adhered to the rules and regulations of H.R. & C.E. Department and Forest Department. It is submitted that out of her dedicated life with deity, the devotees offered contribution for during Annadhanam and out of the same it seems that the said Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal had some bank deposits and other properties. As she was an orphan and had no issue, the petitioner and other persons alleging that they are the devotees of said Sadhu Krishnaveni Amnmal are now attempting to grab the properties on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by the said Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal. It is to submit that a rival group headed by one Mr.Gopal is also claiming right over the said property stating that he was the devotee of the said Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal. All the claims of petitioner and others cannot be decided in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
26.The ninth respondent had filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner trust is a public trust which was formed for protecting the sacred Tamiraparani river from environmental pollution and also for preserving the sacred Kalyana Theertham and the area in an around Pothigai Malai which are the abode of the Holy Siddhar's. He submits that Tamiraparani river is a pristine perennial river from time immemorial and it is the main source of water for Tirunelveli and Tuticorin districts. This sacred river is referred as Dakshan Ganga and along the river there are 108 sacred spots, where Nava Kailayam, NavaTirupathy are situated. The banks of Tamiraparani river abounds in spiritual activities and Kalyana Theertham on the banks of river Tamiraparani is also one of the vital ecological hot spots and sacred spots which is known as the abode of the great Tamil Siddhar's. The trust has conducted various programs and undertaken various activities for protecting Tamiraparani river from pollution and from preserving the chastity of Kalyanatheertham area.
27.He submits that near Kalyana Theertham area many devotees perform religious ceremony and about 200 kg to 500 kg of clothes are disposed in the river during festive occasions which has led to deterioration of the river. In a major step the trust undertook the cleaning of Tamiraparani river near Kalyana Theertham area under (Tamiraparani river cleaning project) and the cleaning process was inaugurated by the former DGP.C.R.Nataraj and the cleansing process went non stop for 24 days with the active participation of various devotees and with full co-operation of the officials and as a result of which nearly 150 tonnes of clothes were removed from the river. He submits that under the aegis and auspices of the trust many saplings were planted in and around Kalyana Theertham and by involving the students of St.Mary's Higher Secondary School, Papanasam main road, Vickramasingapuram. The trust also conducted various programs in preserving Kalyana Theertham from encroachment and to maintain its chastity.
28.He submits that as public spirited persons and local environmentalist the trust is very much concerned about activities of the writ petitioner in trying to encroach the forest property near Kalyana Theertham area coming within Mundamthurai Tiger sanctuary claiming as a descendant of Sadhu Krishnaveniammal. He submits that the averments contained in paragraphs-3 to 5 of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner are denied. He submits that the averment that a public trust was established as per last will of late Sri Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal and the further averments regarding trust activities does not reflect the true facts and are stoutly denied.
29.He submits that the petitioner is an outsider hailing from Chennai is trying to disturb the ecology and chastity of Kalyana Theertham area and is trying to encroach portions near Kalyana Theertham area. The area in and around Kalyana Theertham are under the control of the forest department and the temple near Kalyana Theertham is under the control of H.R. & C.E. The pilgrims and devotees are permitted to visit Kalyana Theertham and to worship in Kalyana Theertham only from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. and outsiders are not permitted to stay inside the forest area near Kalyana Theertham. He submits that the petitioner wants to occupy the temple premises and trying to project himself as a representative in maintianing the temple and to conduct pooja's in Kalyana Theertham. The petitioner though is an outsider and a businessman from Chennai is falsely claiming and propagating himself to be a Sadhu and falsely proclaiming himself as a descendant of Sadhu Krishnaveniammal and is trying to encroach the forest property by disturbing the peace and harmony and ecology of the area.
30.He submits that Sadhu Krishnaveniammal was a sanniyasin and gave up wordly possessions and renounced the materialistic life and she was living only out of the offerings given by the devotees and she has no income of her own and she had totally surrendered to god and led her life only as a Sanniyasin. He submits that Sadhu Krishnaveniammal never owned any properties nor had any right in the reserved forest area and all the activities in and around Kalyana Theertham was done with the prior approval and permission of the Forest Department and H.R. & C.E. Department. He submits that Sadhu Krishnaveniammal was not in a sound state of mind and she was suffering from senility and not keeping good health for nearly five years prior to her death. The will deed alleged by the petitioner is a forged, created and spurious document and the writ petitioner is trying to create right inside the forest property by virtue of the said void will deed.
31.He submits that the attitude and the illegal activity of the petitioner has led to law and order problem and the local population is averse to his activities. In fact various panchayat in and around Kalyana Theertham area have passed resolutions condemning the high handedness of the petitioner. He submits that due to law and order problem peace committee meeting conducted by the forest department and officials concerned and the petitioner and all other persons participated in the peace committee meeting and the petitioner undertook for not creating any trouble and it was agreed that the H.R.&C.E. will conduct the pooja as the temple is under the control of H.R.&C.E. He submits that by suppressing the peace committee resolution the writ petitioner is filing writ petitions one after the other to create a right, inside the forest property near Kalyana Theertham by creating fictitious deeds. The petitioner has no right or locus standi to file the writ petition and the contention in the writ petition are untenable under law or on facts. He submits that the revenue records relied on by the petitioners are created for the purpose of the case and fake address and door numbers were given to manipulate the records for creating right inside the reserved forest area.
32.He submits that the averments contained in paragraph-6 of the affidavit are denied. He states that only to create a right, the writ petitioner has filed petition under Section 64 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act without having any semblance of right. The averment that the respondents were carrying out math activities and they were manhandled are not at all true and are denied. He states that the writ petitioner is not Sanniyasin and the averments are made out for the purpose of the case and it was only because of the illegal activities the law and order problem arose in the area. He submits that the averments contained in paragraphs-7 and 8 of the affidavit as regards the filing of writ petition in W.P.No.11880 of 2011 and the order passed in M.P.No.2 of 2013 is concerned over writ petition which was dragged on by the writ petitioner and when the writ petition was about to be dismissed the writ petitioner submitted that he is not pressing with the relief and he will abide by the direction of the Deputy Director-Wildlife Warden which in consonance with the impugned order of Chief Conservator of Forest and recording the same the writ petition was closed. Though the writ petitioner has given undertaking that he will abide by the direction of the Deputy Director-Wildlife Warden, Ambasamuthram vide enquiry dated 19.03.2003 which is in consonance with order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, the writ petitioner only with a view to create a right, is filing writ petition one after the other by way of forum shopping.
33.He submits that the averments contained in paragraphs-9 and 10 of the affidavit as if he was conducting pooja's and Mahasivarathri festival and that the mutt was locked is not true and are denied. He states that the writ petitioner who is doing business activities in Chennai is trying to encroach the temple premises at Kalyana Theertham and trying to create right inside the forest property by trying to encroach the reserved forest area with the help of his henchmen and infact at his instigation the writ petitioner one Arumugam who is none other than his henchman tried to encroach the area near the temple by putting barbed wire fence and he was booked for the offences under Tamilnadu Forest Act and the said Arumugam had paid a fine of Rs.2,000/- for committing forest offence. He submits that the averments contained in the grounds 10(a) to 10(h) have no basis for the reasons stated above and the writ petition is ill conceived and the writ petition is filed with a oblique motive and so the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to accept this counter affidavit and dismiss the writ petition.
34.The highly competent counsel Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman submits that the petitioner trust was established under a registered trust deed document No.100 of 2011, as per the last Will of Sri La Sri Sahdhu Krishnaveni Ammal, who died on 17.04.2011. The said Krishnaveni Ammal came to this place 60 years ago and stayed till her death. The said Krishnaveni Ammal built up a building around the temple namely Sivan and Shakthi, wherein Annadhanam was also provided to the devotees. The petitioner filed a petition before the fourth respondent herein for providing a scheme to administer and carry out the rituals at the temple. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 were carrying out the worship activities. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry out the Math activities. The same was denied by the respondents. The learned counsel further submits that thereafter the petitioner made representation on 08.03.2013 to the second and third respondents herein. The learned counsel further submits that the third respondent restricted the petitioner math activities and will obstruct the performance of activities of the petitioner trust. Hence, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to break open the lock put up by the sixth respondent, namely the Forest Range Officer, Papanasam.
35.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the place mentioned in the petition, kalyana Theertham is situated in the Papanasam Forest range. The said forest is also a part of Kalakad Mundinthurai Tiger reserve, which was declared in 1988. The petitioner's submission was that the public trust was established in the year 2011. The petitioner has filed false affidavit stating that the respondents had not permitted him to Sadhu Krishnaveni Math. The said place has been declared as Sanctuary for tigers, as per the G.O.Ms.No.2556 dated 02.08.1962. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 28.12.2007, the entire 895 sq. kms. comprising Kalakad sanctuary and Singampatti ex-Jameen forest and Mudinthurai sanctuary including the Papanasam reserve forest was declared as core area of tiger reserve and critical tiger habitat. No person is entitled for any exclusive right over this place. The Forest Department has locked the premises on 20.07.2013 to protect this area, coming under the core area of tiger reserve. Hence, the very competent Government Advocate entreats the Court to dismiss the writ petition.
36.Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the ninth respondent submits that the petitioner trust is a public trust which was formed for protecting the sacred Tamarabarani river from environmental pollution and also for preserving the sacred kalyana Theertham and the area in and around Pothigai Malai which are the abode of the holy Siddhar's. The trust also conducted various programmes in preserving kalyana Theertham from encroachment and to maintain its chastity. The area in and around the kalyana Theertham are under the control of the Forest Department and the temple near kalyana Theertham is under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment. The pilgrims and devotees are permitted to visit kalyana Theertham and to worship in kalyana Theertham only from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. and outsiders are not permitted to stay inside the forest area near kalyana Theertham in the interest of general public. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the writ petition.
37.The highly competent counsel Mr.H.Arumugam appearing for the eighth respondent namely Executive Officer attached to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment board submits that the property belongs to the Government. This respondent is prohibiting the petitioner and others from doing any activities or Pooja or Annadhanam. The order has been passed on 01.06.2011 and this is in force. The Forest Department has permitted the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board to carry out repairs and renovation of the temple. In the said temple no one was allowed to stay overnight. The claim of the petitioner is not maintainable, since he is a stranger.
38.The highly competent counsel Mr.T.Arul, appearing for the seventh respondent submits that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts that there was a meeting conducted by the peace committee by the District Administration wherein, the committee decided that the petitioner is a stranger and his permanent residence is at Chennai. The petitioner is now trying to convert the reserve forest area in and around kalyana Theertham holy place as a tourist spot. The petitioner is trying to create a right by way of this writ petition. The kalyana Theertham holy place and the surrounding areas come within Mundinthurai reserve forest area and the temple therein comes under the Hindu Religious Department. The Department has put up a pathway leading to kalyana Theertham holy place from Papanasam main temple. The Sadhu Krishnaveni Ammal was residing there with the permission of the Forest Department. Further, at the time of executing a Will, Krishnaveni Ammal was not in a sound state of mind. As such, the Will executed by the Krishnaveni Ammal is not valid. The peace committee meeting was conducted on 02.06.2011 headed by the Tahsildar, in the said peace committee meeting, the petitioner agreed that he will not create trouble and also accepted that the temple and surrounding areas belong to the Government. As such, the petitioner is creating an inconsistent statement in the writ petition. The petitioner had committed illegal activities. Hence, F.I.R. was registered against him which is pending enquiry.
39.The petitioner is not a Poojari or a Sadhu and as such he has no locus standi to claim any ritual rights over the temple. The petitioner is trying to encroach the forest property wherein the temple is situated. Further, he was an offender under the Forest Act and paid a fine of Rs.2,000/-, since he pleaded guilty.
40.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court is of the view that the subject matter of the temple is under lock and key as per the petitioner's statement. Hence, the direction has been sought by the petitioner to break open the lock put up by the forest range office / sixth respondent herein. This Court directs the sixth respondent to issue prior notice to all the parties concerned and conduct a comprehensive enquiry in the presence of all parties and take a decision on merits. Till such time, the sixth respondent's order regarding locking of the temple will be in force. Accordingly, the above writ petition is disposed of.
41.In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The State Rep. by its Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservative Officer, Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai ? 600 015.
3.The Chief Wildlife Warden, Deputy Director, Mundantharai Wildlife Sanctuary, Mookoodal, Ambasamudram ? 627 401, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E., Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Project Officer, Mundantharai Wildlife Sanctuary, Mookoodal, Ambasamudram ? 627 401, Tirunelveli District.
6.The Ranger, Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Papanasam, Tirunelveli District.
7.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Papanasa Swami Thirukovil, Papanasam, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District..