Madras High Court
Abeesh Kumar vs The District Collector on 18 December, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.24388 & 24390 of 2024
Abeesh Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Suseendram,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
Vadeeveshvaram,
Nagercoil.
4.The Assistant Director,
Town Panchayat,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining
to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in
proceedings No.M3/E-2624437/2024 dated 08.11.2024 and quash
the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja
For RR 1, 3 & 4 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader
For R – 2 : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 08.11.2024, thereby ordering to do maintenance and renovation work for the purpose of the general public in the land comprised in Survey No.679/2 to an extent of 46.5 cents situated at Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The petitioner is one of the devotees of Kanyakumari Bagavathi Amman Temple situated in the sea shore at Kanyakumari District. It is situated in the land comprised in Survey No.679/1. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024 adjacent property comprised in Survey No.679/2 also belongs to the Temple. However, both the properties such as Survey Nos.679/1 and 679/2 are classified as Government poramboke and remarked as Temple. While being so, the first respondent passed an order dated 08.11.2024 thereby ordered to do maintenance and renovation work in the land comprised in Survey No.679/2 situated at Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the property comprised in Survey No.679/2 belongs to the Kanyakumari Bagavathi Amman Temple. There should not be any encroachment by a third party. Without obtaining any prior permission from the second respondent, the first respondent ordered to maintain and renovate the structures which are available in the subject property. The first respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with the administration and maintenance of the subject property by the Temple.
5.In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.16586 of 2014 etc.., dated 18.12.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024 [S.Rajeswari Vs. The Joint Commissioner], in which this Court held that the land Temple lands vest in the idol, the idol of being of minor status in law, the Court is the guardian. It is the duty of the Courts to protect and safeguard the properties of Religious and Charitable Institutions. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.4850 of 2008 dated 15.02.2011 [T.K.Saminathan Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration] in which this Court held that the Temple land and the land appurtenant thereto are to be enjoyed by the devotees/worshippers of the Temple and it cannot be used by any encroachment that too for constructing a toilet near the Temple which will hamper the sanctity of the Temple which will cause nuisance to the worshippers in general. When public interest and private interest are pitted against each other, it is the well-settled proposition of law that the public interest will have to prevail over private interest and the Courts have to lean to uphold the public interest in preference to the public interest.
6.On perusal of the counter-affidavit of the first respondent and the submissions made by Mr.Veera Kathiravan, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024 learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 would reveal that the Temple is situated in Thiruveni Sangamam of Kanyakumari District in the land comprised in Survey No.679/1. The adjacent property of the Temple is comprised in Survey No.679/2. Both the properties are classified as Government poramboke and remarked as Temple. It is maintained by the second respondent. While being so, the first respondent requested the second respondent to maintain the open land to an extent of 1.09.0 hectares comprised in Re.Survey No.679/2 which are as follows:
'a.Tsunami Memorial park b. Public toilets c. Public Drinking water RO plant d. Sun-Rise open gallery e. To create exclusive pathway for the Differently abled people to access the Sun-Rise point and Thiruveni Sangamam as it is the long pending request of Differently abled people f. Toilet facility for the Differently abled people g. To maintain the stone bathing ghat at Thiruveni Sangamam free from algae growth to totally avoid the people while taking bath skid and fall down https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024 succumb to head injuries, bone fracture sometime deaths of the innocent tourists which was the regular occurrence.
h. To keep the open land free from encroachment and garbage.'
7.However, the second respondent informed that in order to do the above said works, the Temple has no funds and requested the first respondent to take up the public welfare activities through the local body with the Government funds.
Accordingly, the first respondent ordered to maintenance by renovation of those amenities which were already provided to the general public. The general public is nothing but devotees. The Temple is situated at Thiruveni Sangamam and all the general public is coming for worshipping the Temple. Therefore, in order to strengthen public convenience, the first respondent ordered to maintain those amenities which are already availed by renovation. In fact on perusal of the order passed by the first respondent would reveal that the land should not be used for any commercial purpose and there should not be any permanent structure. Further, the said amenities should not be a hindrance to other performances if any towards the Temple. This land should be maintained by the fourth respondent and no rights claimed by the fourth respondent. After https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024 the order passed by the first respondent, now the fourth respondent has taken the following works for the welfare of devotees and tourists as follows:
'i. Construction of Differently abled persons toilet at Rs.7 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
ii. Construction of ramp for the Differently abled at Rs.10 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
iii. Construction of Mother's feeding room at Rs. 10 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
iv. Renovation of HR&CE controlled toilet at Rs. 15 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
v.Erection of high mast light at Triveni Sangamam at Rs.40.75 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
vi.Renovation of Tsunami Park at Rs.9.80 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
vii. Renovation of Sun-Rise point at Rs.7.40 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024 viii. Renovation of cloak room at Triveni Sangamam by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
ix. Maintenance of clean drinking water by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
x. The Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat is cleaning the open space 3 times per day including night by engaging 72 workers.
xi. Cleaning of bathing ghat by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat twice a day by engaging 15 staff.'
8.Therefore, the devotees cannot be said as encroachers. That apart, the above Judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner related to the rank encroacher of the Temple property. Here, there is no encroachment by any third party. In order to give proper amenities to the devotees of the Temple and also the general public, the first respondent was ordered to carry out the works by the fourth respondent without claiming any ownership of the land. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the first respondent dated 08.11.2024. Hence, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024
9.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
18.12.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Suseendram, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Vadeeveshvaram, Nagercoil.
4.The Assistant Director, Town Panchayat, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps Order made in W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024 18.12.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10