Madras High Court
P.Moorthi vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 September, 2021
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 24.08.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
W.P.No.6664 of 2021:
P.Moorthi ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Vengikkal,
Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arani,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Arani Town Police Station,
Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Kasi Viswanathar Temple,
O/o.The Executive Officer,
Sri Kila Varadharaja Perumal Temple,
Sharaff Bazaar, Arani Town,
Tiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
W.P.No.14074 of 2021:
R.Rajesh ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Superintendent of Police,
Vengikkal,
Thiruvannamalai – 606 604.
2.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arani Sub Division,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.Inspector of Police,
Arani Town Police Station,
Arani. ... Respondents
PRAYER in W.P.No.6664 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to give police
protection to me for entering petitioner property bearing Survey No.C/2,
Block No.34/7A Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai District on the
petitioner complaint dated 15.02.2021.
PRAYER in W.P.No.14074 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction, to direct the respondents to offer police protection to the
petitioner to safeguard his position in the property situated C/2, Block
No.34/7A, Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Manoharan
in W.P.No.6664 of 2021
Mr.V.Raghavachari
in W.P.No.14074 of 2021
For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
in both cases
Page No.2 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
For R4 : Mr.R.Bharanidharan
in W.P.No.6664 of 2021.
*****
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.6664 of 2021 has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give Police protection to the petitioner for entering into his property bearing Survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A, Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai based on the complaint, dated 15.02.2021.
2.W.P.No.14074 of 2021 has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give Police protection to the petitioner to safeguard his position in the property situated at Survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A, Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai.
3.Since the relief sought in both Writ Petitions are similar and the grounds raised by the petitioners are common, this Court disposes the above Writ Petitions by way of common order.
Page No.3 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.6664 of 2021 submitted that the vacant landed property bearing survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai District measuring about 13,200 sq.ft belongs to A.J.Raja Rao Nainar and A.J.Sreepathy Rao Nainar. The petitioner purchased the property from the legal heirs of the above said persons and the sale deed was executed in document No.3824 of 2020 on 14.07.2020. The 4th respondent/temple authorities are disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Earlier, the vendor to the petitioner/Jayaraj's father A.J.Sreepathy Rao Nainar filed a suit in O.S.No.149 of 1990 before the learned District Munsif, Arni for declaration of title and permanent injunction to restrain the temple authorities to interfere with the peaceful possession. The other vendor's father A.J.Raja Rao Nainar and the 4th respondent/Executive Officer of Arulmighu Viswanathar Temple, Arani are defendants in the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vendor's predecessor on 26.10.1993 declaring that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant therein have right and valid title over the property and the 4th respondent/temple authorities have no right over the property. This being so, the 4th respondent/temple authorities prevented peaceful enjoyment and possession of the petitioner of the said suit Page No.4 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 property.
5.The learned counsel further submitted that in the year 2002, the 4th respondent/temple authorities filed a condonation of delay in filing the set aside petition against the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.149 of 1990 in I.A.No.198 of 2002. The said condone delay petition was dismissed on 10.02.2003 for default by the learned District Munsif, Arni. After lapses of six years, the 4th respondent/temple authorities filed a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.3652 of 2019 before this Court against the order passed in I.A.No.198 of 2002 in O.S.No.149 of 1990, dated 28.02.2006. This Court, by order, dated 12.11.2019 dismissed the same. He further submitted that since there have been claim and counter claim between the 4 th respondent/temple authorities ('A' Party) and the petitioner's vendor Jayaraj ('B' Party) and there was likelihood of breach of peace, the 3rd respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.2323 of 2020 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., on 16.07.2020 and sent a letter to the Tahsildar, Arni on 17.07.2020. The Tahsildar, Arani issued notice to both 'A' and 'B' parties for enquiry. After enquiry, since the Tahsildar, Arni was unable to give a conclusive finding, he directed the parties to approach civil Court to decide Page No.5 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 the title, by order, dated 22.10.2020 in Na.Ka.No.A1/3679/2020. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent/temple authorities approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and preferred S.L.P.(C)No.14248 of 2020 against the dismissal of C.R.P.No.3652 of 2019 and the same was dismissed on 04.02.2021. Hence, the decree passed in O.S.No.149 of 1990, dated 26.10.1993 has become final and the petitioner is the absolute owner of the disputed property.
6.On 05.02.2021, when the petitioner and his son-in-law/petitioner in W.P.No.14074 of 2021 visited the property for cleaning the bushes and to level the same, the 4th respondent/temple authorities along with others obstructed and prevented the petitioner to clean the property. Hence, the petitioners sent a complaint to the 1st respondent on 15.02.2021 for Police protection and the same was not acted upon.
7.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed typed set containing the decree passed in O.S.No.149 of 1990 and other Judgments passed by the civil Courts and the copy of the complaint, dated 15.02.2021.
Page No.6 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
8.The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.14074 of 2021 submitted that he is the absolute owner of the property having purchased the same on 05.04.2021 from Jayaraj and Amrutha Varshini. Earlier, the ancestors to the petitioner's vendor viz., Raja Rao Nainar and Sreepathy Rao Nainar were in possession and enjoyment of the property and all the revenue records stood in their name. The 4th respondent/Executive Officer of the Kasi Vishwanatha Temple made claim on adverse interest on the wrong entry made in the revenue records. A portion of the property in the said survey number was given for the purpose of expansion of highway and even at that time, the 4th respondent/Executive Officer of the temple raised unwanted objection. This resulted in a reference to the Civil Court in L.A.O.P.No.30 of 1963 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore. After contest, the learned Sub Judge, Vellore had upheld the title and held that the first claimant Raja Rao Nainar was entitled to receive the compensation for the lands acquired. It is further submitted that even during the pre- independence era, the 4th respondent/temple authorities sought to make claim over the property and till the matter was contested in High Court and later, remanded to the trial Court. The 4th respondent/temple authorities had conceded to the title of the petitioner vendor's predecessor herein. The suit Page No.7 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 in O.S.No.327 of 1931 was closed holding that the petitioner vendor's predecessor in title namely Jaya Rao Nainar is entitled to the property. Despite the decree of the civil Court, an error was committed during the settlement proceedings wherein the property was wrongly classified as 'Devadayam'.
9.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner vendor's predecessor had raised an objection against the classification and the trustees of the temple did not raise any objection before the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet in S.R.Nos.2050 & 2055/Arani/MMIA/68, dated 10.11.1968. Based on the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet, dated 10.11.1968, patta was granted in favour of the predecessor in interest namely Raja Rao Nainar, son of Jaya Rao Nainar. The brother of Raja Rao Nainar, Sreepathi Rao Nainar instituted a suit in O.S.No.149 of 1990 seeking for declaration and for injunction. The suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif, Arani in favour of the petitioner vendor's predecessor, which on appeal reached up to the Supreme Court in favour of the petitioner vendor's predecessor. Further, there was also proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., initiated by the Tahsildar, Arani. Since the Page No.8 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Tahsildar, Arani was unable to give any authoritative and categorical finding based on the claim and counter claim, directed the parties to approach civil Court to decide the title, by order, dated 22.10.2020 in Na.Ka.No.A1/3679/2020. In this case, after the dismissal of S.L.P.(C)No.14248 of 2020, which was filed against the dismissal of C.R.P.No.3652 of 2019, the declaration of the learned District Munsif, Arni that the petitioner vendor's predecessor is the title holder of the property is confirmed. After losing before various authorities, the 4th respondent/temple authorities on 10.05.2021 with false allegations again to reopen the case in different form with false allegations had sent a legal notice to the vendor of the petitioner. On receipt of the same, on 26.05.2021, the vendor of the petitioner sent a detailed reply narrating the sequence that how the property devolved upon the vendor's predecessor and also about the various civil Court findings.
10.To substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of “A.S.V.Vardachariar's Versus The Commissioner of Police, dated 16.09.1968” and the decision of this Court in the case of “Rahika Sri Hari Page No.9 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 and another Versus The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore in Crl.O.P.No.8924 of 2013, dated 12.03.2013”, wherein the consistent view of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court is that when Police protection is sought for implementation of the civil Court order, the same should be given readily and the police should not insist on a specific direction from the Court for police protection. From the representation, it is made clear that the petitioner is in possession of the property and the 4th respondent/temple authorities having lost in all forums, is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the 2nd respondent Police has to give the Police protection as sought for by the petitioner.
11.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 filed the counter and submitted that on 16.07.2020, the defacto complainant Sivaji (A Party), who is Executive Officer of Arulmighu Kasi Viswanathar Temple, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District and Jayaraj (B Party)/petitioner's vendor have preferred a complaint before the 2nd respondent Police stating that Jayaraj's predecessor Jaya Rao Nainar in the year 1928 purchased a land from the original owner Page No.10 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Arulmighu Kasi Viswanatha Temple, Arni, Thiruvannamalai District. From then on, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the above said land which was verified by the revenue officials viz., the Settlement Officer, Chengalpet in S.R.No.2050 & 2055/Arni/MMIA/68, dated 10.11.1968. From then on, the said Jaya Rao Nainar was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and after his demise his sons Sreepathi Rao Nainar and Raja Rao Nainar were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Adjacent to the Sreepathi Rao Nainar's property, there is a land which belonging to Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Temple (A Party). There were some interference in the enjoyment of the above said property. He further submitted that Sreepathi Rao Nainar filed a suit in O.S.No.149 of 1990 before the learned District Munsif, Arani and the same had reached the logical end up to the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above.
12.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submitted that Sreepathi Rao Nainar died on 30.10.2021 leaving behind remaining legal heirs. The remaining legal heirs of Sreepathi Rao Nainar have jointly executed registered power of attorney deed in favour of their brother namely Jayaraj to deal with property vide document No.3779 of 2020, dated Page No.11 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 08.07.2020. By virtue of the said power of attorney deed, the above said Jayaraj, S/o Sreepathi Rao Nainar has got power to deal with the property. Based on the said Power of attorney Jayaraj executed a sale deed to the extent of 13,200 Sq.Ft on 14.07.2020 vide document No.3824 of 2020 in favour of P.Moorthy (B party) petitioner in W.P.No.6664 of 2021. The said Jayaraj on 05.04.2021 executed a sale deed to the extent of 49,504 Sq.Ft vide document No.3061 of 2021 in favour of R.Rajesh (B party) petitioner in W.P.No.14074 of 2021. Since there was claim and counter claim over the property, the 2nd respondent police, based on the complaints of both A and B party registered a case in Crime No.2323 of 2020, under Section 145 Cr.P.C on 16.07.2020. The 4th respondent/temple authorities were arrayed as A party and the legal heirs of Sreepathy Rao Nainar and Raja Rao Nainar and the petitioners were arrayed as B party. The Tahsildar, Arani on 22.10.2020 in Na.Ka.No.A1/3679/2020 directed the petitioners and the 4th respondent/temple authorities to approach the civil Court to decide the title. Thereafter, a legal opinion from the Government Pleader was obtained by the 2nd respondent Police. Since there was commotion and likelihood of breach of peace, on 29.04.2021, the Tahsildar, Arni vide Na.Ka.No.A1/1431/2020 conducted a peace meeting. Due to outbreak of Page No.12 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 second wave of pandemic the 2nd respondent Police was unable to take any further action. Further, the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Arni in Na.Ka.No. A1/1431/2020 is yet to be completed. As earlier directed by the Tahsildar, Arni in Na.Ka.No.A1/3679/2020, dated 22.10.2020, no civil Court order was obtained by both A and B parties. Therefore, the respondent Police will abide by any direction of this Court that may deem fit to pass.
13.The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent filed counter, typed set and submitted that the 4th respondent is the Executive Officer, Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Temple, Arni, Thiruvannamalai. Both petitions filed by the petitioners seeking Police protection to enter into the property based on the complaint dated 15.02.2021 is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioners are attempting to execute an exparte decree made in O.S.No.149 of 1990 by way of police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners' admission that the Police protection is sought for to enter into the property which is said to have been purchased by them, itself would prove the fact that the vendors have not handed over possession to them. Now by way of Police complaint, the petitioners wanted to forcibly take possession of the property which is in Page No.13 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 dispute. The land comprised in Survey No.34/7A measuring 1.44 acres originally classified as 'Devadayam' lands given in support of Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Temple (Poojal Maniyam) and was in possession of one Jaya Rao Nainar who seems to have purchased the same from the service holder one Munirathina Gurukkal which was not intimated to the temple for whose support the lands were given. The lands were Iruvaram Devadayam Inam lands granted in support of the temple by the erstwhile Jagirdar which was also recognized under section 17(1)(b) of the Estate Abolition Act 26 of 1948.
14.He further submitted that from the records, the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion of Ryotwari) Act, 30 of 1963 came into force patta was granted in favour of Raja Rao Nainar under section 11 r/w Section 8 (2)(1)(b) Act 30 of 1963 subject to the condition that the pattadar to pay compensation as prescribed by the Tahsildar. Further the petitioners or vendor's predecessor have not produced any records in this regard to the temple or before the Court or forum to prove compensation being paid. Therefore, the said purchase of Raja Rao Nainar from the service holder is itself non-est in law. The order passed by the Settlement Page No.14 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Tahsildar, Chengalpet dated 10.11.1968 is perse illegal and could not be acted upon for the simple reason that under Section 11(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 it is incumbent upon the Settlement Tahsildar to give notice to the Commissioner appointed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. The mandatory requirement of issuing a notice to the institution has not been complied with and therefore, the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet in S.R.Nos.2050 & 2055/Arni/MMIA/68, dated 10.11.1968 could not bind the institution. As per section 41 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, any sale or any portion of the inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution or service connected therewith shall be null and void. The sale deed was created in such manner to grab the property granted for the support of the temple. This aspect had not been looked into by the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet. The legal heirs of Sreepathy Rao Nainar cannot claim any right on the basis of the void sale deed. The legal heirs of the above mentioned Raja Rao Nainar namely one Sreepathy Nainar filed the suit in O.S.No.149 of 1990 seeking for declaration and permanent injunction as against the 4th respondent/temple authorities, in which the Page No.15 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 temple was set ex-parte and the learned District Munsif, Arni without going into the evidences filed by the plaintiff therein and not discussing about the same, held as follows:
“2/vGtpdh 1/ jhth brhj;Jf;fs; thjpf;Fk; 2Mk; gpujpthjpf;Fk; ghj;jpakhd brhj;Js;fs; vd;gJ cz;ikah?
2/ jhth brhj;J Fwpj;J thjp chpik tpsk;g[if
ghfhuk; bgwj;jf;ftuh?
3/ jhth brhj;Jf;fis thjpa[k;. 2Mk; gpujpthjpa[k;
ou!;ofs; vd;w Kiwapy; mDgtpj;J tUfpwhh;fsh?
4/ thjpf;F fpilf;ff; Toa ntW ghpfhu';fs; vd;d?
3/ ,d;W th/rh/1 tprhhpf;fg;gl;lhh;/ Mtz';fs; th/rh/1. 2 Fwpf;fg;gl;ld/ nghUhpik epU:gpf;fg;gl;lJ/ thjp tHf;Fiuapy;
nfhhpathW bryt[j; bjhifa[ld; jPh;g;ghiz
gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/”
15.The 4th respondent/temple authorities has filed I.A.No.198 of 2002 in O.S.No.149 of 1990 to condone the delay of 3031 days for filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree made in O.S.No.149 of 1990. The said I.A.No.198 of 2002 came to be dismissed, as against the same, he preferred C.R.P.No.3652 of 2019 before this Court wherein this Court, by order, dated 12.11.2019 dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. Against Page No.16 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 which, the 4th respondent preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court In S.L.P.(C)No.14248 of 2020 which also came to be dismissed by order dated 04.02.2021. Thereafter, the 4th respondent/temple authorities has filed application before the Hon'ble Apex Court seeking review of the order, dated 04.02.2021 in review Filing No.6865 of 2021. The petitioner vendor's predecessor who obtained the decree of declaration and permanent injunction, who seemed to have alleged interference of their possession by the officials of the temple, ought to have filed an execution petition as the land is a barren land and there was no conclusive proof that the vendor of the petitioner was in physical possession of the property and therefore in order to avoid such question in the execution petition, the petitioners made attempt to circumvent this procedure prescribed under order 21 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
16.To support his submissions, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent relied on the case reported in “2005 (2) L.W. 621 (S.NJ. Abdul Hakeem and others Versus Assis Rathul Musthakeem Etha Trust and others)” has held that the High Court was not an executing Court and since the alternative remedy under the Civil Procedure Code is available, the Writ Page No.17 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Jurisdiction ought not have been invoked. In this case, the petitioners avoided to file execution petition only to circumvent the possession being put to test as to whether the vendors of the petitioner wherein in physical possession of the property in question possessed and further took advantage of the ex-parte decree as made in O.S.No.149 of 1990, dated 26.10.1993. It is to be seen that there was proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., initiated by the Tahsildar, Arni. The Tahsildar, Arni, by order dated 22.10.2020 had directed the parties to approach and seek remedy before the concerned civil Court. From the complaint made by the petitioners, dated
15.02.2021 to the 2nd respondent Police, they have admitted that they are not in possession of the property and only trying to reclaim the possession of the property in pursuance of the dismissal of Special Leave Petition (C) No.14248 of 2020.
17.After ex-parte decree being passed in O.S.No.149 of 1990 on 26.10.1993, the petitioner vendor's predecessor had not filed any execution petition to recover the land from the temple authorities and it is admitted that the land is a barren land. The 4th respondent produced the extract of A register wherein the survey No.34/7A shows the land belongs to Arulmighu Page No.18 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Kasi Viswanathar Temply for the purpose of pooja and the present occupant is Raja Rao Nainar.
18.In the case of “Ghan Shyam Das Gupta and another Versus Anant Kumar Sinha and others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 379” held that 'the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an executing Court. The remedy provided under Article 226 is not intended to supersede the modes of obtaining relief before a civil court or to deny defences legitimately open in such actions. The remedy under the Civil Procedure Code is of superior judicial quality than what is generally available under other statutes, and the Judge being entrusted exclusively with administration of justice, is expected to do better.' Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
19.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
20.It is seen from the extract of 'A' Register of the property that the property in Survey No.34/7A measuring about 1.44 acres is classified as Page No.19 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 iruvaram devadayam land. As per the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet, dated 10.11.1968 in S.R.Nos.2050 & 2055/Arani/MMIA/68, the petitioners vendor's predecessor Raja Rao Nainar, son of Jaya Rao Nainar were directed to be issued with Ryotwari Patta under section 11 r/w 8(2)(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion of Ryotwari) Act, 30 of 1963. On perusal of the order, it is seen that the town survey Nos.C2/25-1 and C2/34-7 of Aranipalayam Village, Arni Taluk, North Arcot are devadayam inam grants made for the support of Pillaiyar and Kasi Visvanathan Temples in the village and recognized as such under Section 17(i)(b) of the Estate Abolition Act 26/48. These fields were taken over under Section 3(b) of the Madras Act 30/63 on 15.02.1965. For the purpose of clarification, the order of Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet, dated 10.11.1968 in S.R.Nos.2050 & 2055/Arni/MMIA/1968 is extracted:-
“T.S.Nos.C2/23-1 & C2/34-7A of Arnipalayam village, Arni Taluk, North Arcot are devadayam inam grants made for the support of "Pillaiyar" and "Kasi Visvanatha"
temples in the village and re-cognised as such under section 17(1) (b) of the Estate Abolition Act 26/48. These fields were taken over undersection 3(b) of the Madras Act 30/63 on 15- 2-65.Page No.20 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
2. Neither the occupants nor the trustees of the temples applied for grant of patta. Sumotu enquiry was therefore, takenup under the powers delegated in G.O.P.401 Revenue dated 13-2-65.
3. The field staff reported that both the fields are cultivable lands and allenated to Thiru Rajaroa s/o Jayarao Nainar". Notice in form No.5 was served on him and notice in Form No.6 waspublished in the village in the mannr as prescribed under the rules.
4. Thiru A.J. Raja Rao s/o Jayarao Nainar appeared before me for enquiry and he was examined as P.W.1. He produced a sale deed in which his father punchased these fields from the then service holders of the temple and field a copy of it as Exhibit D1. The sale deed bears the document No.2567 dated 3-7-28. He gave his willingness to pay the Government, the compensation prescribed under section 8(2)
(i) (b) of the Madras Act 30/63 in response to the notice in Form No.7 issued to him and requested grant of patta for the fields to him.
5. The karnam of the village was examined as C.W.1.
deposed that these fields are iruvaram devadayam inam grants made for the support of the temples by the erstwhile Arni Jagirdar and recognised as such under section 17(1) (b) of the Estate Abolition Act 26/48. He also deposed that the "Pillaiyar" temple is in existence andthat "Kasivisvanathar temple is in ruins for a very long time. He added that these Page No.21 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 fields were alienated to Thiru Jayarao Nainar father of Thiru Rajarao and corroborated P.W.1.
6. The deposition of the karnam and the enquiry records of thefield staff show that these fields are iruvaram devadayam inam grants made to the temples and that they were alignated to Thiru Jayarao Nainar. P.W.1 who is the son of Thiru Jayarao Nainar. P.W.1 who is the son willing to pay the Government, the compensation prescribed under section 8(2)(0)(b) of the Madras Act 30/63. No objections have been received. 1, therefore, direct that ryotwari patta be issued to Thiru Rajarao s/o Jayarao Nainar under section 11 read with section 8(2) (1) (b) of the Madras Act 30/63.. Subject to the conditions that he pays the Government the compensation prescribed therein.
7. The Tahsildar, Arni is requested to determine the compensation due to the Government from Thiru Raja Rao under sections (2) I (b) of the Madras Act 30/63 and intimate it to the Assistant Settlement officer, Chingleput at an early date.”
21.Further, the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet directed that Ryotwari patta be issued to Raja Rao Nainar under Section 11 r/w Section 8 (2)(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion of Ryotwari) Act, 30 of 1963, subject to the condition that “he pays the Page No.22 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Government the compensation prescribed therein” and further directed the Tahsildar, Arni to determine the compensation due to the Government from Raja Rao Nainar and intimate to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chengalpet at an early date. What had happened thereafter, is not known. The petitioners vendor's predecessor was unable to produce any proof or document to show that the compensation was determined and paid. Hence, whether the conditional order is complied or not is not known. On the contrary, Sreepathy Rao Nainar filed a suit in O.S.No.140 of 1990 against the 4th respondent/Executive Officer and Raja Rao Nainar as though he was in peaceful possession and to restrain the defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession. Thereafter, an exparte decree obtained for both devadayam lands in survey No.34/7A measuring 1.44 acres and survey No.23/1 measuring 0.42 acres. It is strange and surprise to see on what basis Sreepathy Rao Nainar filed the civil suit and how he gained right over the property. It is seen that the plaintiff in suit Sreepathy Rao Nainar and the 2nd defendant Raja Rao Nainar both were residing in the same address i.e., Dharmaraja Kovil Street, Arnipalayam, Arni Town. On the contrary, Raja Rao Nainar, set exparte in O.S.No.149 of 1990. The 4th respondent/Executive Officer was not aware about the exparte order and Page No.23 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 later on coming to know about the same, filed a condone delay petition in I.A.No.198 of 2002 in O.S.No.149 of 1990 with 3031 days delay and the same was dismissed, against which C.R.P.No.3652 of 2019 was filed by the 4th respondent/temple authorities and the same was also dismissed on 12.11.2019, as against which Special Leave Petition(C)No.14248 of 2020 was preferred and the same was also dismissed on 04.02.2021. Thereafter, the 4th respondent/temple authorities has filed application before the Hon'ble Apex Court seeking review of the order, dated 04.02.2021 in review Filing No.6865 of 2021.
22.The brother of Sreepathy Rao Nainar, Raja Rao Nainar obtained order from Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet in S.R.Nos.2050 & 2055/ARNI/MMIA/68, dated 10.11.1968. This being so, Sreepathy Rao Nainar for the reasons best known had filed suit in O.S.No.140 of 1990 and obtained an exparte decree, dated 26.10.1993. Thereafter, the said Sreepathy Rao Nainar had approached the Settlement Tahsildar, Arni in Na.Ka.No.67 of 2010 seeking patta for the property in Survey No.C/2, Block No.34/7A, Arani, Vellore Road, Thiruvannamalai, which was rejected, by order, dated 19.07.2011. Against which, Sreepathy Rao Nainar Page No.24 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai in Na.Ka.No.E2/8738/2011, dated 04.10.2011 primarily placed reliance on the conditional order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet in S.R.Nos.2050 & 2055/ARNI/MMIA/68, dated 10.11.1968 and based on the exparte order in O.S.No.149 of 1990, dated 26.10.1993, issued patta to Sreepathy Rao Nainar. The decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Arni in O.S.No.149 of 1990, dated 26.10.1993 declaring Sreepathy Rao Nainar as the owner of survey No.34/7A measuring 1.44 acres is only an exparte order and not on merits. Following the same, the Settlement Tahsildar, Arni in Application No.359 of 2011, dated 26.12.2011 recorded that since Sreepathy Rao Nainar passed away on 30.10.2011, directed issuance of patta in the name of his legal heirs Uthirakumari, Jayaraj, Geetha and Subashini. Hence, the patta was registered in their names.
23.It is seen that the suit in O.S.No.160 of 2012 was filed by the legal heirs of Sreepathy Rao Nainar before the learned District Munsif, Arni, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants namely the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District; the Tahsildar, Arni Taluk, Fort, Page No.25 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Arni; the Sub-Collector, Cheyyar Division, Cheyyar Town; the Settlement Tahsildar, Town Fort, Arni and the Commissioner, Arni Municipality, Fort, Arni Town and not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In this suit, for the reasons best known, the 4th respondent or any of the temple authorities are not arrayed as parties. Thus, in this case, there are fundamental flaw and suppression of fact.
24.The petitioners claim is that in S.R.Nos.2050 & 2055/ARNI/MMIA/68, dated 10.11.1968, the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet had passed an conditional order for ryotwari patta as per the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Concersion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, but what had happened thereafter is not known. Further, on what ground, Sreepathy Rao Nainar approached the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai and obtained order in Na.Ka.E2/8738/2011, dated 04.11.2011 is shredded with mystery. From the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet in S.R.Nos.2050 & 2055/ARNI/MMIA/68, dated 10.11.1968, it is seen that it was Raja Rao Nainar, who appeared during enquriy, produced documents and gave willingness to pay the government, the compensation prescribed under Section 8(2)(i)(b) of the Madras Act 30/63. One Karnan Page No.26 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 of the village was examined as CW1, who categorically deposed that the fields are iruvaram devadayam inam grants made for the purpose of the temples by the erstwhile Arni Jagirdar and recognised as such under Section 17(i)(b) of the Estate Abolition Act 26/48. Hence, the land is iruvaram devadayam land is conclusive one and not disputed. This being so, without complying the conditional order in S.R.Nos.2050 & 2055/ARNI/MMIA/68, dated 10.11.1968, approaching the Assistant Settlement Tahsildar, Chennai again and obtaining order in Na.Ka.No.E2/8738/2011, dated 04.10.2011 based on the exparte civil Court decree in O.S.No.149 of 1990, cannot give any title right to the petitioners or his vendor's predecessor. It would beneficial to extract Section 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963:-
“11.(2)(a)Before holding the enquiry under sub- section (1), the Assistant Settlement Officer shall give notice in the prescribed manner to the inamdar and to the Tahsildar of the taluk or Deputy Tahsildar of the sub-taluk in which the inam land is situated; and
(i) if the person in occupation of the land is not the inamdar, to the occupant;Page No.27 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
(ii) if the inam has been granted for the benefit of a Hindu religious institution or for service therein, to the Commissioner appointed under the [Tamil Nadu] Hindu Religious and ??? Endowments Act, 1959 [Tamil Nadu] Act 22 of 1959), or to an officer specified by the said Commissioner in this behalf;
(iii) if the inam is a wakf within the meaning of the Wakf Act, 1954 (Central Act XXIX of 1954), to the Board of Wakfs constituted under that Act, or to an officer specified by the said Board in this behalf.
[(iv) to such other persons as may be specified in the rules made by the Government in this behalf.]
(b) The Assistant Settlement Officer shall also publish in the prescribed manner in the village the notice referred to in clause (a) and after giving the parties who appear before him an opportunity to be heard and to adduce their evidence, give his decision.”
25.The decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai in Na.Ka.No.E2/8738/2011, dated 04.10.2011 is in violation of Section Section 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. As per Sub Section (2), the Government may within one year from the date of decision, and any person aggrieved by such Page No.28 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 person may, within three months to file an appeal before the Tribunal. The proviso gives discretion to the Tribunal to entertain any appeal by the government if it appears to the Tribunal that the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer is vitiated by fraud or by mistake of fact. In this case, clear fraud and distortion of facts have been committed.
26.Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 states about the Constitution of Tribunals and Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 states that each Tribunal shall consist of only one person who shall be a Judicial Officer not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge and Section 7(3) states that the Government shall, by notification from time to time, determine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 is a statutory presumption, which is in favour of the 4th respondent/temple authorities. This being so, the Assistant Settlement Chennai, Chennai after finding that it is iruvaram devadayam land, ought to have issued notice to the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department or to the officer specified by the said Page No.29 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Commissioner in this behalf and thereafter, only he can proceed with the enquiry. Admittedly, in this case, the statutory notice was not issued and served, as could be seen from the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai.
27.In view of the same, the order of the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai become non est in law and any order passed thereof is of no consequence. The civil suit filed by Sreepathy Rao Nainar in O.S.No.149 of 1990 is without cause of action. While being so, no reliance could be placed on the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.149 of 1990. The order of the Settlement Tahsildar is vitiated by fraud, since the statutory procedures were not complied with. If at all the patta is issued in favour of legal heirs of Sreepathy Nainar and Raja Rao Nainar, the same is void in the absence of any evidence for payment of compensation.
28.It is not in dispute that the lands are devadayam inam lands with both varam. The presumption under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 is in favour of Page No.30 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 the temple authorities. In this case, the 4th respondent has not properly acted, which does not mean the right of the idol to be denied. Idol is a minor and the Court is the custodian to safeguard the same and hence, the minor interest cannot be abandoned. The admitted case is that the lands are vacant lands. In view of the proviso of Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, it is seen that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chennai is vitiated by fraud. The appeal by the Government can be entertained even after the appeal period.
29.For a clear understanding of Inam Abolition Act, this Court extracts the relevant portion of the judgment in the case of “Sri Karivardaraja Perumal Temple and Ors. Versus K.S.J.Raju Chettiar and Ors. reported in MANU/TN/0463/1976”:-
“12.As we mentioned earlier ,the whole purpose of Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 was to abolish the minor inams in the State and introduce the ryotwari settlement in their place. The scheme of the Act, in its operative provisions, was so contrived to effectuate this desired legislative objective. One of the objects being abolition of the minor inams, it was necessary Page No.31 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 for the legislature first to do away with the rights and obligations, powers and privileges that were in vogue under the pre-exacting system, which it was decided to destroy. Understandably enough therefore, Section 3(a) explicity declares, inter alia, that as and from the appointed day, the Tamil Nadu Act XXX of 1963 alone shall be applicable to the minor inams and that any other existing law on the subject shall be deemed to be repealed. Section 3(c) declares that all rights created by the inamdar in or over his inam before the appointed day shall cease and determine as against the Government. Section 3(g), which is important for the present discussion, lays down that:
any rights and privileges which may have accrued in the minor inam to any person before the appointed day against the inamdar shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable against the Government or against the inamdar and every such persons shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognised or conferred on him, by or under this Act.
It is in the context of these previsions that the statutory machinery for the introduction of the ryotwari settlement and the grant of ryotwari patta should be considered.
13.In our considered opinion, the claim, as put forward by the Respondents cannot lie in view of the clear provisions of Section 3(g) of the Act. While Section 3(c) destroys the rights created by the inamdar himself in or over Page No.32 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 his inam, Section 3(g) applies to rights which had accrued to any person against the inamdar and puts an end to all such rights and interests which had accrued before the appointed day. Title by adverse possession, obviously does not fall under Section 3(1), but the language of Section 3(g) apply covers it.
Acquisition of title to the Kudivaram by prescription or adverse possession must, in in our view, be held to answer the description accrual of rights against the inamdar occurring in Section 3(g) of the Act. Two results flow from this position. In the first place, such right as might have accrued to the Respondents against the Temple cease to exist. Secondly in the place of these accrued rights which have ceased to exist, nothing would be recognised by the law excepting such rights as are conferred or recognised under the Act itself. It follows there fore, that the Respondents could not rely on their so sailed prescriptive title which accrued to them as against the temple as a foundation for claiming ryotwari patta under Section 8(1) of the Act.
14.There is yet another consideration. In our view the very scheme of Sections 8 rules out of the recognition of prescriptive title to Kudivaram right in a religious inam. We have earlier referred to the terms of Section 8(1) to the effect that its provisions are subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2). Section 8(2) reiterates the same overriding effect in its opening words, Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub- section (1)...Section 8(2) as we have noted earlier, is a special Page No.33 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 provision in the matter of grant of ryotwari patta specially designed for iruvaram religious inams. Section 8(2) has two clauses, clause (i) and clause (ii). Under the scheme of the subsection, clause (ii) would apply only where clause (i) does not apply. Clause (i) has two sub-clauses, (a) and (b). They are in the following terms:
8 (2)(i) where the land has been transferred by way of sale and the transferee or his heir, assignee, legal representative or person deriving rights through him had been in exclusive possession of such land:
(a) for a continuous period c f sixty years immediately before the 1st day of April, 1960, such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land;
(b) for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the 1st day of April, 1960, such person shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta if he pays a consideration to the Government in such manner and in such number of instalments as may be prescribed an amount equal to twenty times the difference between the fair rent in respect of such land determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule and the land revenue due on such land.
These two sub-clauses contemplate that ryotwari patta in an iruvaram minor inam of a religious institution would be denied to that institution and would be granted to any other person only in cases where that other person is able to Page No.34 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 establish two things; (i) that he had obtained a transfer of the land from the religious institution by way of sale; and (ii) that he had been in uninterrupted possession of the land for a period of sixty years or twelve years, as the case may be immediately before 1st April 1960. Both the conditions, the transfer by sale as well as the continuous possession, must be fulfilled in order that the said provision may be relied on. In Marimuthu v. K.K. Sri Sankaranarayanaswami Temple 87 L.W. 652 it was held that where a religious or charitable inam land had been alienated, but possession was not proved as provided in Clause (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8, the alliance will not be entitled to patta. In a case where, such as the present, persons claim kudivaram interest solely on the basis of adverse possession, Section 8(2)(i)(a) or (b) cannot, obviously apply. The fact that these provisions require not merely long possession, but also a right derived from actual transfer of title by purchase as the foundation of the claim shows that the legislative intention was not to recognise, for the purposes of the Act, any claim to ryotwari patta on the basis, merely, of adverse possession.
15. To sum up, on the very language of the provisions of Section 8(1), read in the context of Section 8(2), Respondents cannot ask for a ryotwari patta in their favour. The expression lawfully entitled to the Kudviaram occurring in Section 8(1) would only be applicable to cases where the Page No.35 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 person claiming to be entitled to ryotwari patta is in a position to show that he was entitled to the kudivaram interest under the very terms of the grant of the inam. On the terms of Section 8(1) an inamdar who is the grantee of both the varams would certainly be entitled to the kudivaram interest. So too would be a person holding land as a kudivaramdar under an inamdar the grant to whom is of the melwaram alone. In cases where the grantee is of both the varams and is, in additions religious institution, Section. 8(1) cannot apply, because of the special provisions under Sub-section (2). We have already referred to the provisions of Section 8(2)(i) clauses (a) and (b). Section 8(2)(ii) provides for those cases which are not covered by Section 8(2)(i)(a) and (b) clause (ii), in other words, provides for all cases of iruvaram religious, in as much in which there have been no transfer by way of sale of the land and the transferee is not in possession at all or is in possession for less than twelve years continuously prior to 1st January 1960. In the case of such lands, it is categorically enacted that the ryotwari patta has got to be granted only to the religious institution and to no other persons. In Marimuthu v. K.K. Sri Sankaranarayanaswami Temple 87 L.W. 652 it has been held that if either of the provisions in clause (a) or (b), is not satisfied, then under clause (ii) of Section 8(2) the Tribunal will have to grant patta to the institution itself. To the same effect is an unreported decision of this Bench dated 15th March 1976 in S.T.A. No. 66 of 1973. In that case, Sri Sandhi Page No.36 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Vinayagar Devasthanam, Tirunelveli, was the grantee of a Devadhayam Inam Grant consisting of both the varams. It was found as a fact that the lands were, however, in the possession and enjoyment of the Respondents. But, it was also found that there was no sale of the land en the basis of which possession was claimed within 60 years or within 12 years before 1st April 1960 in favour of the Respondents or their predecessors- in-interest. In the circumstances, the Bench held that Section 8(2)(ii) being applicable, the religious institution cannot be deprived of a patta. It was observed that a reading of that sub- section itself would show that the application should succeed and the relief prayed for by him had to be granted.
16. In view of the above legal position, we have no doubt whatever that in this case it is the Appellant temple that should get the ryotwari patta in regard to the lands in question. There can be no question at all that Section 8(2)(ii) applies to the temple in regard to these lands. We have already held the grant in the temple's favour to be iruveram lands, and although the possession may not be with he temple for over 12 years or even 60 years, the persons in possession have not been able to make out that their possession and those of their predecessors in title are derived from a transfer of title by the temple by way of sale. It follows that Section 8(2)(i) does not apply. Thus, the residuary provision in Section 8(2)(ii) clearly Page No.37 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 applies and the temple would be exclusively entitled to the patta. We hold accordingly.”
30.On appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the above decision of this Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 234. In the case of “A.A.Gopalakrishnan Versus Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 3162”, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“10.The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their Trustees/Archaks/ Sebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of 'fences eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.” Page No.38 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
31.In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the petitioners vendor's predecessor claiming title and right over the property becomes doubtful and questionable one. The A Register confirms that it is iruvaram devadayam land of Arulmighu Kasi Viswanathar Temple, Tiruvannamalai. In violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, the iruvaram devadayam lands cannot be transferred and alienated.
32.In the result, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners and the same are liable to be dismissed and are, hereby, dismissed.
33.This Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, finding that the orders passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, Chengalpet is vitiated by fraud and suppression of facts, directs the Government to file an appeal before the appropriate Tribunal to safeguard the interest of minor and protect the temple lands. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Page No.39 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 Department and its officials should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of the Court to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claim or misappropriation. No costs.
30.09.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Arani Town Police Station, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District.
4.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Kasi Viswanathar Temple, O/o.The Executive Officer, Sri Kila Varadharaja Perumal Temple, Sharaff Bazaar, Arani Town, Tiruvannamalai District.
Page No.40 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Copy To:
1.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai.
2.The Secretary, HR & CE Department, Chennai.Page No.41 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.Nos.6664 & 14074 of 2021 30.09.2021 Page No.42 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/