Madras High Court
K.Ramasamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 18.07.2022
PRONOUNCED ON: 16.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13703 and 13704 of 2019
K.Ramasamy : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai Sub-Division,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
4.Uthayasuriyan : Respondents
(R.4 is impleaded vide Court order
dated 09.08.2019 in W.M.P.(MD)No.14055 of 2019)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent
vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.A2/3040/2019, dated 26.07.2019 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission and protection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/18
W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019
for the petitioner's celebration of temple festival at Arulmigu Kaliamman Temple
situated at Pandalgudi, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District which is scheduled
to be taken place from 13.08.2019 to 15.08.2019.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R.1 to R.2
: Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
for R.4
ORDER
It is apt to begin the order with the observation of the First Bench of this Court made in the first paragraph of the judgment passed in W.A.(MD)No.69 of 2015, dated 04.02.2015 :
“Religion is opium of the masses. Masses do not stop fighting even for worshipping of God. It is such situations, which result in administrative authorities, at times, locking-up of the temples so that God can rest in peace, without His followers fighting over in what manner and how the God be worshipped.”
2. The Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent, vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.A2/3040/2019, dated 26.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission and protection for the petitioner's celebration of temple festival https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 at Arulmigu Kaliamman Temple situated at Pandalgudi, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District, which is scheduled to be taken place from 13.08.2019 to 15.08.2019.
3. The petitioner and the fourth respondent belong to 24 Manai Telungu Chettiyar community and the 24 Manai Telungu Chettiyar community people residing in Pandalgudi village are owning Arulmigu Kaliamman Temple and a marriage hall and some other properties. There existed two groups one headed by the petitioner and the second one headed by the fourth respondent. There existed serious and continuous disputes between the two groups in managing the temple and other properties and conducting of festival in their temple. When the marriage hall constructed by the said community people was inaugurated on 03.08.2018, there arose disputes between the parties and the first respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer has convened a peace committee meeting on 28.07.2018 in which both groups have participated and they have reached a settlement, wherein they have agreed to select the organizers for the function from both the groups and to conduct the opening ceremony of the marriage hall on 03.08.2018.
4. It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent has filed a writ petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein to implement https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 the decision taken in the peace committee meeting dated 14.06.2018 in regard to the celebration of Arulmigu Kaliamman Kovil festival on the eve of Aadi 18 and subsequent House Warming function of marriage hall that belongs to the 24 Manai Telungu Chettiyars Uravin Murai of Lingapuram, Pandhalkudi Village, based on the representation of the fourth respondent, dated 09.07.2018 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court and when the said matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for both parties, represented that the dispute between the parties has been resolved before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai and to that effect, the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/3040/2018, dated 28.07.2018 has been issued, that both parties have given undertaking that they will strictly comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in the said proceedings. This Court, by observing that if there is any violation of the said proceedings by any of the parties, it is open to the concerned party to seek appropriate remedy before the concerned authority or before the appropriate Court, disposed of the Writ Petition, vide order dated 02.08.2018.
5. It is further evident that the first respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer has issued proceedings dated 10.08.2018 to the Circle Inspector of Police, Aruppukkottai directing him to grant permission for conducting temple festival if they come as a single group and they should not be allowed to function https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 in two groups and then to give proper police protection for conducting of the festival without any law and order issues. In pursuance of the said directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Inspector of Police of Aruppukkottai Taluk Police Station has convened a meeting by observing that there existed disputes between two groups and agreed to celebrate the festival separately, permitted the group headed by the petitioner to conduct the festival from 14.08.2018 to 16.08.2019 and that the group headed by the fourth respondent is permitted to conduct the festival in Avani month. The fourth respondent, not satisfying with the meeting convened by the Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station by alleging that they were compelled to subscribe their signature, sent a representation dated 26.06.2019 to the revenue and police officials directing them not to accord permission to any of the individual group. Thereafter, the fourth respondent has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.15269 of 2019 for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the revenue and police officials to permit the fourth respondent and 100 families of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiyar belonging to the fourth respondent group of Lingapuram Village to participate in the Aadi festival scheduled to be held from 13.08.2018 to 15.08.2018 as per the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 28.07.2018 and 10.08.2018. Thereafter, the third respondent has registered a case in Cr.No.90 of 2019 on 24.07.2019 under Section 107 Cr.P.C., and pursuant to which both the groups were called upon to be present before the first respondent for executing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 bonds and accordingly, both the parties have appeared before the second respondent and executed bonds meant for keeping peace. Thereafter, the first respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai has passed the impugned proceedings dated 26.07.2019 directing to lock the temple, marriage hall and other buildings belonging to the 24 Manai Telungu Chettiyar community.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Executive Magistrate has no power under Sections 107 and 111 Cr.P.C., to lock the buildings which belong to a party to the proceedings, that the first respondent, after taking bonds under Section 107 Cr.P.C., has imposed double punishment by ordering to lock the temple and the other buildings and thereby he has exceeded his jurisdiction, that when the petitioner and the members of that community have completed all arrangements for conducting the festival from 13.08.2019 to 15.08.2019 without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry, the first respondent has passed the impugned order and that therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the above petition challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent. No doubt, the consequent prayer of seeking directions to grant permission and protection for their celebration of temple festival at Arulmigu Kaliamman Temple at Pandalgudi Village, Aruppukkottai, for the period from 13.08.2019 to 15.08.2019 has become infructuous. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019
7. Now coming to the main prayer, the first respondent has assigned three reasons for passing the main proceedings for locking the temple, marriage hall and other buildings belonging to the 24 Manai Telungu Chettiyar Community -
(i) There existed continuous disputes between the two groups; (ii) the Writ Petition filed before the High Court is pending and (iii) in the interest of the village people.
8. It is pertinent to note that the writ petition referred by the first respondent in the impugned proceedings was filed by the fourth respondent in W.P.(MD)No.15269 of 2019 and that when the said writ petition was taken up for hearing on 13.07.2022, this Court, by recording the submission made by the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent that the writ petition itself has become infructuous, dismissed the writ petition. No doubt, the said writ petition was pending at the time of passing of the impugned proceedings, but subsequently the same was ordered to be dismissed.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident reported in (2012)5 SCC 1 and argued that the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., can remain in force not in excess of two months and for passing an order under the said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 provision, that the perception of threat to public peace and tranquillity should be real, not quandary, imaginary or a mere likely possibility. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment has dealt with various aspects relating to permitting public meetings, rallies and demonstrations and the scope of Section 144 Cr.P.C.
10. It is pertinent to note that Section 144 Cr.P.C., empowers the Executive Magistrates to issue an order that prohibits the gathering of four or more persons in an area mainly to prevent and treat urgent cases of perceived danger or nuisance. Hence, Section 144 Cr.P.C., has nothing to do with the dispute on hand. Chapter X of Cr.P.C., (Sections 129 to 148 Cr.P.C.,) deal with the maintenance of public order and tranquillity in general of which Sections 145 to 148 deal with the disputes as to immovable property.
11. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Siddiq (dead) through legal representatives Vs. Mahant Suresh Das and Others [Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case] reported in (2020)1 SCC 1 while explaining the nature and scope of power under Section 145 Cr.P.C., has held as follows:
“Section 145 is recognised to be a branch of the preventive jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Section 145(1) can be invoked on the satisfaction of the Magistrate that “a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists…”. The provision relates to disputes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 regarding possession of land or water or its boundaries which may result in breach of the peace. The function of the Magistrate is not to go into questions of title, but to meet the urgency of the situation by maintaining the party in possession. The Magistrate is empowered to call upon the parties to put in written statements in support of their claim to “actual possession”. Such an order is to be served as a summons upon the parties. The Magistrate is to peruse the statements, hear the parties and weigh the evidence, in order to ascertain who was in possession at the date of the order. The Magistrate may make that determination “if possible” to do so. Moreover, the determination is about the factum of possession on the date of the order “without reference to the merits of the claim of any of such parties to a right to possess the subject of the dispute”. These words indicate that the Magistrate does not decide or adjudicate upon the contesting rights to possess or the merits of conflicting claims. The Magistrate is concerned with determining only who was in possession on the date of the order. If possession has been wrongfully taken within two months of the order, the person so dispossessed is to be taken as the person in possession. In cases of emergency, the Magistrate can attach the subject of the dispute, pending decision. The action ultimately contemplated under Section 145 is not punitive, but preventive, and for that purpose is provisional only till a final or formal adjudication of rights is done by a competent court in the due course of law. Thus, nothing affecting the past, present and future rights of parties is contemplated under the provision.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019
12. It is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranbir Singh vs Dalbir Singh and Others (Crl.A.No.401 of 2002, dated 20.03.2002) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the Court, while dealing with a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., is mainly concerned with the possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date; the Court is not required to decide either title to the property or right of possession of the same and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:
“On perusal of the relevant papers on the record and on consideration of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the context of the facts of this case, the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order dated 11.7.2000 passed under Section 145(1) as well as the order dated 14.11.2000 passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is unassailable.
However, the High Court was in error in dealing with the Revision Petition as if it was exercising appellate jurisdiction. The High Court has dealt with the developments in the case relating to the acquisition of title, the allegations of fraudulent transfers made by Karnail Singh and M/s.Homestead and the circumstances in which the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Keeping in view the limited scope of the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. these questions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 were not material for determination of the main issues in the case. The Court, while dealing with a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., is mainly concerned with possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date; the Court is not required to decide either title to the property or right of possession of the same. The question for determination before the High Court in the present case was one relating to the validity or otherwise of the preliminary order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. and sustainability of the order of attachment passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. For deciding the questions it was neither necessary nor relevant for the High Court to have considered the matters relating to title to and right of possession of the property. Further, both the parties in the case have filed suits seeking decree of permanent injunction against each other and in the suit filed by the appellant an order of interim injunction has been passed and an objection petition has been filed by respondent no.1. The suits and the interim order are pending further consideration before the civil court.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that while maintaining the order of the High Court quashing the preliminary order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145(1) and the order of attachment of the property under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., leave should be granted to the parties to approach the civil court for appropriate interim order and the civil court should deal with the application for interim order without being influenced by the observations made/findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is ordered accordingly. In order to enable the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 parties to approach the civil court for interim order and with a view to avoid further complication in the matter, the interim order passed by this Court on 18.01.2002 directing status quo regarding possession of the property in dispute to be maintained shall remain in force for a period of three weeks from today.”
13. In Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others ( Crl.A.No. 2038 of 2012 dated 13.12.2012), the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the Magistrate, after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., or is unable to decide which of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof.
14. In the case on hand, admittedly, the first respondent has not decided as to who was in possession of the property in dispute at the relevant point of time. Moreover, the first respondent has not even observed that from the materials available, he is not in a position to decide as to who was in possession at the relevant point of time. It is pertinent to note that the Revenue Divisional Officer has miserably failed to record his subjective satisfaction as to who were in the management of the temple and who were in the possession of the property in dispute at the relevant point of time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019
15. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent without specifying the buildings to be locked, has directed the Revenue Tahsildar of Aruppukkottai and the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station to lock the marriage hall, all the buildings and temples and to produce the keys. The first respondent has not specified the buildings and the temples and whereas he has passed a generalised order for locking the same. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 26.07.2019 and in pursuance of the same, the temple, the marriage hall and other buildings belonging to the said community were locked.
16. It is seen from the records that after filing of the present writ petition, the learned Judge of this Court, considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent, that they were agreeing to celebrate the festival separately, by observing that without going into the merits of the case, as an interim measure, this Court has directed the first respondent to permit the fourth respondent group to conduct the festival from 10.08.2019 to 12.08.2019 and the petitioner group from 13.08.2019 to 15.08.2019 and after the completion of the festival, they have to return the key to the Sub-Inspector of Police, who in turn to hand over the same to the Inspector of Police, Pandalgudi Police Station and also directed to the police officials to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 give necessary police protection for the peaceful conduct of the festival by both parties, vide order dated 09.08.2019, in W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019.
17. Moreover, learned Judge has further observed that the said order was passed as an interim arrangement to conduct the festival for the year 2019 alone and the Court has not expressed any view on the issues involved in the writ petition and the same will be decided later in the writ petition.
18. It is further evident that when the above writ petition is pending, the matter was referred to mediation and the same was ended in failure. Admittedly, no civil suit or other proceedings are pending between two groups for deciding the right to manage and possess the temple, marriage hall and other properties. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court, the Executive Magistrate is not having any power or jurisdiction to decide about the title or right to possess any immovable property.
19. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahar Jahan Vs. State of Delhi reported in (2004)13 SCC 421 and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:
“ It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that this very property which is the subject-matter of these criminal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 proceedings is also the subject-matter of the civil suit pending in the civil court. The question as to possession over the property or entitlement to possession would be determined by the civil court. The criminal proceedings have remained pending for about a decade. We do not find any propriety behind allowing these proceedings to continue in view of the parties having already approached the civil court. Whichever way proceedings under Section 145 CrPC may terminate, the order of the criminal court would always be subject to decision by the civil court. Inasmuch as the parties are already before the civil court, we deem it proper to let the civil suit be decided and therein appropriate interim order be passed taking care of the grievances of the parties by making such arrangement as may remain in operation during the hearing of the civil suit.”
20. This Court in C.Ramasamy Nadar and others Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District and others in Crl.R.C. (MD)No.102 of 2015, dated 09.07.2015 has observed as follows:
“3.Admittedly, as of now, the land comprised in Survey No.511/8 is a patta land in favour of the A party. The patta stands in the name of one Ramasamy Nadar S/o.Chithiravel Nadar in the capacity as trustee of Pathirakaliamman Temple which is situated in Survey No.511/8. In Survey No.511/8, of-course, there is some vacant place. The B party people are objecting to the compound wall being constructed surrounding to the temple and the vacant land https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 comprised in Survey No.511/8. In between the land comprised in Survey Nos.511/8 and 511/6, there is a road comprised in Survey No.511/7. Despite the said fact, the B party people claim right over the vacant land in Survey No.511/8. Whether they have got such a right or not, is a civil dispute which is to be decided by the Civil Court. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Collector cannot decide the said dispute. Therefore, the direction Nos.1 & 2 issued by the first respondent are liable to be set aside. The B party, if so advised, can very well approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief, if they could establish that they have got some kind of right over the land in Survey No.511/8.”
21. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the order of the first respondent is not good in law and the same is liable to be set aside, but at the same time, the petitioner or the fourth respondent or any member of the 24 Manai Telungu Chettiyar community are at liberty to approach the competent civil Court for determining their rights with regard to Arulmigu Kaliamman Temple, marriage hall and other properties. Considering the fact that this dispute involves the people belonging to the same community, with a view to avoid aggravation of the situation, this Court is of the view that the status quo as of now is to be continued and at the time of conducting temple festival both parties are directed to approach the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to convene a meeting and to decide the dates on which both the groups have to celebrate the festival, similar to that of the interim order passed by this Court in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 W.P. W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019, dated 09.08.2019 in the coming years till the competent civil Court decides about the rights of the parties finally or at least till the passing of the interims orders by the competent civil Court.
22. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
16.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SSL Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai Sub-Division, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Tahsildar, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/18 W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
SSL W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2019 16.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/18