Madras High Court
Arulmighu Vedagiri Eswarar Temple vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By Its on 1 October, 2012
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 1.10.2012
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN
W.P.No.8629 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Arulmighu Vedagiri Eswarar Temple,
represented by its Trustee L.Ethiraj .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its
Principal Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forests Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Forest Officer, Kancheepuram. .. Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.2.2012 made under Section 17-A of the Tami Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and consequently forbear the second respondent from preventing the trustees/worshippers of the petitioner-Temple from reaching the Temple situate in Survey No.300/2 through the lands in Survey No.301 of Kumili Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
For petitioner : Mr.R.Bharanidharan for Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For respondents : Mr.N.Inbanathan, Govt. Advocate.
ORDER
Heard Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Inbanathan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, namely Arulmighu Vedagiri Eswarar Temple, has come before this Court to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.2.2012 made under Section 17-A of the Tami Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and consequently forbear the second respondent from preventing the trustees/worshippers of the petitioner-Temple from reaching the Temple situate in Survey No.300/2 through the lands in Survey No.301 of Kumili Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
3. The affidavit is filed by the non-hereditary Trustee of the petitioner-Temple. The petitioner-Temple is a Saivaite Temple with Lord Shiva as the Presiding Deity in existence for more than 100 years. The devotees throng the Temple not only from surrounding villages, but also from other parts of the State of Tamil Nadu in view of its historical value. The Temple is presently situated in S.No.300/2 of Kumili Village, Chenglepet Taluk, Kancheepuram District measuring an extent of 1 acre, which claims to be proved by document dated 2.9.1963, which is a settlement deed executed by one P.Ganapathy Naicker, son of Kuppusamy Naicker in favour of the Temple donating 10 cents of lands to the Temple as a worshipper of the Temple. Originally, the Temple was situated in R.S.No.71 and thereafter, it has been revised in Re-survey No.300/2. The Temple in the past has been managed by the villagers of Kumili Village and though the Temple has not come under the control of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Kancheepuram, exercising the powers under Section 49(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, appointed non-hereditary Trustees to the Temple in his proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.656/2009/A3, dated 18.1.2010. Though the said appointment was made for a period of one year, the same is deemed to be extended in view of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner, Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Department, Kancheepuram has not appointed any other person as non-hereditary Trustee. The worshippers of the Temple reached the Temple situate in Survey No.300/2 of Kumili Village through the lands in S.No.300.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Temple has been worshipped by vast number of people from the surrounding villages in which various festivals have been conducted during the Tamil month of Chithirai. Neither the Trustees nor other persons who were maintaining the Temple in the past, did not face any kind of obstruction from any of the authorities in conducting the prayers and festivals. However, when the Trustees as well as other worshippers undertook the work of renovation during November 2011, the same had been objected by the second respondent on the ground that the Temple is situated in a land which has been declared as reserve forest and that the second respondent would not allow any activity in the said land and prevented the worshippers as well as the Trustees from entering into the Temple.
5. The petitioner-Temple has represented to the first respondent in respect of their grievance, particularly, to the second respondent who has to send a proposal to the Government to re-define the limits of the reserve forest as provided under Section 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. A representation dated 24.2.2012 was sent to the respondents. Pending consideration of the said representations, as there is an apprehension that the second respondent may prevent the Trustees and worshippers from entering into the Temple, the petitioner-Temple is before this Court for consideration of the representation and also to forbear the second respondent from preventing the Trustees/worshippers of the petitioner-Temple from reaching the Temple.
6. The second respondent, on his behalf and on behalf of the first respondent, has filed counter affidavit, inter-alia stating that Kumili reserve forest is an extent of 487.94 hectares, which was notified under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 on 15.6.1891. After 120 years, the petitioner-Temple is demanding the re-defining of the limits of the reserve forest without specifying the defects made in the notification. The original notification of the said reserve forest has clearly defined its boundary limits. The petitioner-Temple was built in Kumili reserve forest land 30 years before and it is not in patta land enclosure. Vedagiri Eswarar Temple is actually existing in the Kumili reserve forest, but not in S.No.300/2 of Kumili Village as stated by the petitioner. The appointment of the Trustees to the Temple by the H.R. & C.E. Department is not disputed. The existence of the said Temple is inside Kumili reserve forest and the Forest Department is ready to prove that the petitioner-Temple is constructed by encroaching the Kumili reserve forest land. The Forest Range Officer, Tambaram stopped the renovation work of the Temple during his field inspection during 2011, because the Temple is situated on the forest land and so far, no Trustees or Management authorities have come forward to meet the Forest Range Officer, Tambaram to prove their rights pertaining to the Temple. The Temple was built in Kumili reserve forest and the Forest Department authorities are ready to prove it by joint land survey. If there are any defects in the notification of the reserve forest on 15.6.1891, the petitioner can claim the same with the Government for re-defining the limits of the forest boundaries and so far, no such claim was made by the Trustees of the petitioner-Temple or its predecessors. Instead of constructing the Temple in the patta lands enclosure, the Temple was constructed in the Kumili forest reserve by encroaching the forest land about an acre and the respondents prayed for dismissing the Writ Petition.
7. On the above background of pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking me through the various documents annexed in the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition, pointed out several documents in favour of the petitioner-Temple and submitted that the Temple is in existence for more than 100 years and therefore, it has to be renovated and the H.R. & C.E. Department is the authority to appoint the non-hereditary Trustee and they are empowered to renovate the Temple and there cannot be any obstruction by the other authorities.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents consistently pleaded before this Court that the reserve forest notification was made on 15.6.1891 as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and the area has been defined and the boundaries are demarcated in it. Therefore, as of now, the Temple in question is in the Kumili reserve forest area and therefore, the Trustees are not empowered to do anything without prior approval from the Government.
9. It is seen that the petitioner-Temple, namely Arulmighu Vedigiri Eswarar Temple is a Saivaite Temple situated in Kumili Village of Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The documents annexed in the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition, particularly in page 2, which is the extract of permanent land register, reveals that S.No.300 is shown as belonging to two names as per R.S.No.71/1 and the petitioner claims that the Temple was situated in S.No.71/1, which has been re-surveyed as 300 and entry to the Temple is from S.No.301, which is defined as forest land.
10. The pleadings of the respondents reveal that as per Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the Kumili reserve forest area was notified with an extent of 487.94 hectares on 15.6.1891. If that is so, the area includes the petitioner-Temple situated in S.No.300/2 which was originally claimed as S.No.71/1, and it is claimed by the petitioner that the Temple had been existence for more than 100 years. Further, there is a document of settlement deed dated 2.9.1963 donating the lands by one of the worshippers showing the existence of the Temple. The Temple is in the same area and one of the Trustees who sworn to affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, was appointed by the H.R.& C.E. Department as per proceedings dated 18.12.2010 and the Temple has made a representation dated 24.2.2012 to respondents 1 and 2 on behalf of the village people and devotees of the Village Panchayat requesting the Government as well as the second respondent to pass necessary orders by taking action under Section 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 to re-define the limits of the forest area duly recording the existence of the other rights of the Temple, though it is stated in the counter affidavit that no such claim was made by the Trustees of the Temple or its predecessors. The said representation is pending before the respondents. In the meanwhile, the Forest Range Officer and other forest officials are coming to the place of the Temple and making certain disturbances. Finding that there is no effective alternative remedy, the petitioner-Temple has come before this Court for directing the authorities to take appropriate action by passing orders on the said representation.
11. It is pertinent to note from the averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit that it is for the appropriate Government to look into the grievance of the petitioner for re-defining the limits of the boundaries, and if it is well within the notified area or for any re-survey of land, such a course is to be adopted by the Government in accordance with the provisions of law.
12. As the petitioner's grievance has to be looked into by the appropriate Government, the first respondent is to be directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.2.2012. Though the petitioner has sought for a direction to the second respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner, dated 24.2.2012, such a copy of the said representation has also been marked to the first respondent and as per the averments of the second respondent in the counter, it is for the first respondent alone to consider such a representation.
13. In the light of the above stated position, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the petitioner-Temple's representation, dated 24.2.2012 made under Section 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and after notice and opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, the respondents 1 and 2 shall pass necessary orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the parties to the Writ Petition are directed to maintain status quo as on today. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
cs To
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Environment and Forests Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Forest Officer, Kancheepuram