Madras High Court
A.Radhakrishnan vs The Secretary To Government on 12 August, 2022
Author: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
W.P.No.20903 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.20903 of 2022
A.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4.The Commissioner of Survey and Settlements,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5.The Inspector General of Registrations,
100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
6.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
____________
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20903 of 2022
7.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.
8.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
9.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
Koimbedu, Chennai - 600 107.
10.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Limited,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
11.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034.
12.The Director General of Police/
Head of the Police Force,
Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai-600 004.
13.The District Magistrate cum Collector
Salem – 636 001.
14.The District Revenue Officer
Salem – 636 001.
15.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Suramangalam
Salem – 636 005.
16.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
North, Hasthampatty
Salem – 636 007.
____________
Page 2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20903 of 2022
17.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department, Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus
Salem – 636 001.
18.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats
Collectorate Campus
Salem – 636 001.
19.The Assistant Director
District Town and Country Planning Office
Subramaniya Nagar
Suramananglam, Salem – 636 005.
20.The Deputy Inspector General of Registrations
Kumaragiri Byepass
Salem – 636 004.
21.The Present Administrator
Arulmigu Angalamman Temple
Near Modern Theatre
Salem – 636 008. .. Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to secure
and safeguard the 21st respondent temple properties in Survey
Nos.18/3 and 18/4, Kannankurichi Village, Salem to an extent of
4.47.0 Hectare and restore the same in the name of temple by
considering 2nd respondent's proceeding dated 27.10.2021,
08.07.2022 and 12.07.2022 and also considering the petitioner's
representation dated 26.10.2021.
____________
Page 3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20903 of 2022
For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Maruthachalamurthy
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by
Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
for respondents 1 to 9,
12 to 16 and 18 to 20
: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
for respondents 11 and 17
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The writ petition has been filed by a devotee to seek a direction on the respondents to secure and safeguard the temple properties in Survey Nos.18/3 and 18/4, Kannankurichi Village, Salem to an extent of 4.47.0 Hectare and restore the same in the name of temple by considering second respondent's proceeding dated 27.10.2021, 08.07.2022 and 12.07.2022 and the petitioner's representation dated 26.10.2021.
____________ Page 4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land belonging to the temple was mutated in the names of third parties and entries were made in the revenue records. The aforesaid happened in the year 2013, but no action against it was taken by the temple. To espouse the cause of the temple, the petitioner, being a devotee, sent representation to the respondents for change of the entries in the revenue records so as to restore the land in question in the name of the temple. However, as no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner was left with no option but to file this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Sections 4 and 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [for brevity “the Act of 1959”] to emphasise that even if the temple is a private temple not under the control of the HR&CE Department, the provisions of the Act of 1959 would apply and thereby the property of the temple cannot be alienated without following the procedure contemplated under the Act of 1959.
____________ Page 5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022
4. The argument aforesaid was raised when learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the HR&CE Department so as learned State Government Pleader submitted that the temple in question is a private temple not governed by the Act of 1959. A reference of the definition of “temple” given under the Act of 1959 has been given for the aforesaid purpose, with reiteration of the fact that all the temples in the State of Tamil Nadu are not under the control of the HR&CE Department, rather the Act of 1959 is applicable only to those temples which fall within the definition of temple.
5. Learned State Government Pleader further submits that for correction of the entries in the revenue records or challenge to the mutation, a remedy exists under the revenue laws, but without availing the said remedy, the writ petition has been filed by the devotee to espouse the cause of the temple. In case any adverse order is passed in this petition, it would have a bearing on the rights of the temple. Thus, the locus of the petitioner to file a writ petition ____________ Page 6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022 regarding the property of a private temple is questioned.
6. It is further submitted by learned State Government Pleader that Sections 4 and 34 of the Act of 1959 have no relevance to the case on hand and the said provisions have been referred only to mislead the court. The prayer is, accordingly, to dismiss the writ petition.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.
8. The writ petition has been filed in reference to the entires made in the revenue records on the mutation effected in the year 2013, where, according to the petitioner, the land belonging to the temple has been mutated in the names of third parties and entires were made in the revenue records. Since the temple failed to take action in reference to it, the petitioner, being a devotee, has filed this writ petition.
____________ Page 7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022
9. The first issue would be about the jurisdiction of this court to entertain challenge to the mutation or entries in the revenue records, because a remedy is available for it under the revenue laws. Without availing the alternative remedy, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court has been invoked without carving out an exception so as to maintain the writ petition. Thus, the writ petition for correction of entries or challenge to the mutation would not be maintainable, rather for that any person aggrieved can avail the remedy under the revenue laws.
10. The second issue is about the status of the temple. The temple in question is a private temple and does not fall within the purview of the Act of 1959, as admitted. The definition of “temple” given under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1959 is quoted hereunder:
“Section 6(20) “temple” means a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship;
____________ Page 8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022 Explanation. —Where a temple situated outside the State has properties situated within the State, control shall be exercised over the temple in accordance with the provisions of this Act, in so far as the properties of the temple situated within the State are concerned.”
11. If a place is of public religious worship, then it may fall within the definition of “temple”. However, a private temple would not be open for public religious worship and in that case, it would not be under the control of the HR&CE Department. There is nothing on record to show that the temple in question is a place of public religious worship.
12. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of HR&CE Department has referred to the letter dated 11.8.2022 addressed to him by the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Salem, to the effect that the temple in question does not fall within the purview of the Act of 1959, as it is a private temple.
____________ Page 9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 4 of the Act of 1959, which is quoted hereunder:
“4. Exemptions.- The Government may, by notification exempt whether prospectively or retrospectively from the operation of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder any religious institution or religious or charitable endowment or vary or cancel any such exemption:
Provided that before such exemption is varied or cancelled, the person affected shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such variation or cancellation.”
14. Section 4 of the Act of 1959 does not stipulate that every temple would be governed by the Act of 1959. Rather, it gives authority to the government to exempt from the operation of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder any religious institution or religious or charitable endowment or vary or cancel any such exemption. The question of exemption would come into the picture when any religious institution or religious or charitable ____________ Page 10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022 endowment is governed by the Act of 1959. Thus, the reference of Section 4 of the Act of 1959 is to mislead the court.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Section 34 of the Act, which pertains to alienation of immovable trust property. Firstly, when the temple in question is not governed by the Act of 1959, the Commissioner would not have jurisdiction to the property of such private temple and Section 34 of the Act of 1959 would not be applicable and, furthermore, even if it is assumed that the said provision is applicable, then also it bars alienation of the property by any means and it does not permit questioning of entries in the revenue records or the mutation of records. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show alienation of the temple property by the trustees. Therefore, the reference of Section 34 of the Act of 1959 has been given by learned counsel for the petitioner only to mislead the court.
16. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to apply Section 4 or Section 34 of the Act of 1959 to the case on hand.
____________ Page 11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022
17. The third issue raised is regarding the locus of the petitioner. The petitioner, claiming to be a devotee, has filed this writ petition. Since we have given a finding on the first two issues adverse to the petitioner, the third issue is left open and otherwise any finding rendered by this court on merit may affect the right of the temple.
18. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition to challenge the entries in the revenue records and mutation of names is not maintainable. Rather, for that liberty is given to invoke the remedy available under the revenue laws. It is more so when the temple in question is not under the control of the HR&CE Department and is a private temple, as stated in the letter dated 11.8.2022. However, the private temple may espouse its cause in the manner known to law, if it is satisfied that entries in the revenue records and mutation are effected illegally.
19. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed with ____________ Page 12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022 no order as to costs.
20. We make it clear that the observations made herein above would not affect the right of the Government, if they propose, to bring the temple in question within the purview of the HR&CE Department.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
12.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
sasi
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4.The Commissioner of Survey and Settlements, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5.The Inspector General of Registrations, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
____________ Page 13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022
6.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
7.The Director of Town Panchayats, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.
8.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
9.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Koimbedu, Chennai - 600 107.
10.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Limited, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
11.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034.
12.The Director General of Police/ Head of the Police Force, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 004.
13.The District Magistrate cum Collector Salem – 636 001.
14.The District Revenue Officer Salem – 636 001.
15.The Revenue Divisional Officer Suramangalam Salem – 636 005.
____________ Page 14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022
16.The Assistant Commissioner of Police North, Hasthampatty Salem – 636 007.
17.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Temple Campus Salem – 636 001.
18.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats Collectorate Campus Salem – 636 001.
19.The Assistant Director District Town and Country Planning Office Subramaniya Nagar Suramananglam, Salem – 636 005.
20.The Deputy Inspector General of Registrations Kumaragiri Byepass, Salem – 636 004. ____________ Page 15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20903 of 2022 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND N.MALA, J.
(sasi) W.P.No.20903 of 2022 12.08.2022 ____________ Page 16 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis