Judgment : 1. The petitioner claiming to be a lessee under the third respondent, the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Varadaraja Perumal Thiru Koil, has filed this writ petition to quash the Order, dated 26.02.2014, passed by the first respondent the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, by which the petitioner's revision petition filed under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) [hereinafter, it may be referred to as 'the Act'] was dismissed. 2. The petitioner would state that he is a lessee under the third respondent in respect of the property, comprised in S.F.No.287 of Vairichettipalayam, Thuraiyur Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District, measuring an extent of 7 Acres 61 Cents, since 2002. It is further stated that the third respondent leased out the property to one Annamalai and the said Annamalai was unable to cultivate land. The petitioner approached the third respondent expressing his willingness to cultivate the said land and the third respondent is said to have paid a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- and handed over the possession of the said land to the petitioner during 2002 on a lease rent of Rs.4,000/- per annum. The petitioner would further state that though the third respondent assured that he would record the petitioner's name as a tenant and execute a lease deed, the same was not done by the third respondent. But, the petitioner continued to be in possession of the land and effected improvements after obtaining loan from the Cooperative Bank and the petitioner has also discharged the loan during 2006. 3. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.711 of 2003, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy, as against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and that the third respondent admitted in the plaint that the property was in the possession of the petitioner. Fearing forcible eviction, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.67 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur, as against the third respondent and in the meantime the petitioner approached the revenue authorities for recording his name as a tenant in respect of the said land and the case is pending before the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, in T.R. No.4 of 2012. 4. 4. It is further submitted that the third respondent filed a petition, under Section 78 of the Act, before the third respondent, in Application No.582 of 2012, to evict the petitioner from the possession of the said land. It is stated that on the date of hearing, the petitioner's counsel could not appear due to ill health and without affording any opportunity, the second respondent allowed the eviction petition, on 18.07.2013. As against the said order of eviction, the petitioner preferred a revision petition in R.P.No.107 of 2013 D2 before the first respondent, under Section 21 of the Act, which was dismissed, on 26.02.2014. Impugning the said order, dated 26.02.2014, passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after elaborately referring to the facts, submitted that the impugned order does not contain any valid reasons and without considering the merits of the petitioner's case, mechanically rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the first respondent failed to see that the second respondent did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner and ought to have remanded the matter to the second respondent for proper adjudication. Further, it is submitted that the documents produced by the petitioner will clearly prove that he is a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Land) Act, 1961 and he is entitled to the privileges under the said Act. Further, it is submitted that when a petition in T.R.No.4 of 2012, filed by the petitioner, to record his name as a tenant in respect of the said land, is pending, the Application No.582 of 2012 for eviction under Section 78 of the Act is not maintainable. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the third respondent cannot evict the petitioner without invoking Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Land) Act, 1961. Further, by referring to Section 21(A)(3) of H.R. & C.E., Act, it is submitted that the second respondent erroneously passed an order, without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Further, it is submitted that based on a fabricated Othi deed, the third respondent issued a notice of eviction and the intention of the third respondent is mala fide. Further, it is submitted that based on a fabricated Othi deed, the third respondent issued a notice of eviction and the intention of the third respondent is mala fide. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for the improvement of the said property and he is entitled to continue as a tenant and enjoy the said property. Further, the petitioner's possession has been admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent in O.S.No.67 of 2012 and subsequently a document was created as if it is a possessory Othi for the period from 2008 to 2010 by receiving advance of Rs.40,000/- and rent at Rs.4,000/- per annum. 7. The petitioner would further state that believing the undertaking of the third respondent, he signed several papers for the grant of permission for leasehold right and these were all used against the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was paid compensation by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as 400 KV line tower was erected in the said property, which would go to prove that the petitioner is in possession of the said property. With the above submissions, the learned counsel prayed for interference with the impugned order passed by the first respondent and to protect the petitioner's possession of the said property. 8. The learned counsel for the third respondent, by relying upon the affidavit filed by the third respondent in support of the petition filed to vacate the interim order of status quo, submitted that his fore-fathers set apart nearly 100 Acres of land in the said Village for charitable purposes, by a registered Trust Deed, 10.09.1885 and they have constructed two temples and the third respondent's great grandfather was appointed as the hereditary trustee to take care of the management and administration of the temple and it's properties. It is further submitted that the third respondent was appointed as a hereditary trustee by proceedings, dated 18.05.2004 and since then he has been managing the affairs of the said temple and it's properties. After the third respondent assumed the Office as hereditary trustee, he came to know that the petitioner was illegally occupying the property of the temple having taken over possession from one Annamalai, who was cultivating the said property. After the third respondent assumed the Office as hereditary trustee, he came to know that the petitioner was illegally occupying the property of the temple having taken over possession from one Annamalai, who was cultivating the said property. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been recognized as a tenant of the temple and his possession is illegal and no lease agreement was entered into during 2002 as alleged by the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that on 04.04.2003, an Anti-Power Theft Squad of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board found pilferage of electricity committed by the petitioner and in this regard a notice was issued to the petitioner, but he refused to receive the same and since the electricity service connection stood in the name of the said temple i.e., Varadarajaperumal Temple, the temple was compelled to pay for theft of energy. Though the third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.711 of 2013, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli, challenging the action of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the same was dismissed the third respondent has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.202 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. 10. During the pendency of the said appeal, since the electricity service connection which stands in the name of the said temple was to be disconnected, the third respondent had to bring about a solution to the matter and therefore executed a lease deed, on 11.10.2008, in favour of the petitioner and produced the same before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board officials and only thereafter the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat. It is further submitted that out of the amount of Rs.40,000/-, paid as advance, under the deed dated 11.10.2008 the third respondent paid Rs.35,140/- towards fine to the Electricity Board and the third respondent is in possession of the original receipt. 11. Further, it is submitted that the lease was executed mentioning a very meagre lease amount based on the undertaking that the petitioner will deliver vacant possession of the property after 31.08.2010 and to solve the dispute with the Electricity Board amicably. Having failed to keep up the said promise, the third respondent filed an application, under Section 78 of the Act, before the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. The said authority recorded the statement of the third respondent and the petitioner was called to appear on 25.04.2013. Having failed to keep up the said promise, the third respondent filed an application, under Section 78 of the Act, before the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. The said authority recorded the statement of the third respondent and the petitioner was called to appear on 25.04.2013. The petitioner appeared along with his counsel and the case was adjourned to 06.06.2013 and thereafter adjourned to 20.06.2013 and once again adjourned to 04.07.2013 and on the said date the petitioner failed to appear nor filed any counter affidavit. Thus, the Assistant Commissioner, having granted sufficient time to the petitioner to file his counter affidavit and make his submissions, proceeded to decide the matter ex parte. It is further submitted that the property in dispute is a very valuable property and it would fetch minimum of Rs.10,00,000/- and the petitioner, being an encroacher, cannot be treated as a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Trust (Regulations and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961. Further, it is submitted that the temple is not a public trust and therefore the provisions of the said Act do not apply. 12. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, dated 01.07.2014, was received by the petitioner, which was suppressed and the order passed by the second respondent was communicated to the petitioner on 09.04.2013, but the petitioner has falsely stated as if he received the order passed by the first respondent on 25.06.2014. Therefore, it is stated that petitioner has played fraud. With the above submissions, the learned counsel for the third respondent sought to sustain the impugned proceedings. 13. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 on the above submissions and perused the materials placed on record. 14. The short issue, which falls for consideration, is as to whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent is vitiated on the grounds raised by the petitioner and as to whether the impugned proceedings under the provisions of the H.R. & C.E.Act are maintainable to evict the petitioner and whether the petitioner was afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to putforth his defence in the eviction proceedings. 15. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he was a direct tenant under the said temple. 15. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he was a direct tenant under the said temple. Even as per the stand taken by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he would state that the third respondent promised to execute a lease deed during 2002, but failed to do the same. In the absence of any document produced by the petitioner to show that his possession was lawful, the petitioner has to be termed as an encroacher of temple property. The petitioner would state that his possession was admitted by the third respondent and he has effected improvements in the properties in dispute, invested his money and approached the Tahsildar for recording his name as a cultivating tenant under the 1961 Act. 16. Firstly, the petitioner has to establish that he was a tenant of the temple. Only if the said temple is a public trust, the provisions of the 1961 Act would stand attracted. The petitioner having miserably failed to establish his alleged tenancy since 2002 by producing any documents, can hardly claim that he is entitled to approach the Tahsildar to record his name as a cultivating tenant and an encroacher, who has no lawful right upon the property, cannot state that he has to be recorded as a cultivating tenant in respect of the temple property, which is not a public trust. 17. Furthermore, the petitioner himself would admit that he came into possession of the property through one Annamalai, who was said to have been cultivating the property initially. Firstly, the petitioner should establish that the said Annamalai was a lawful inducted tenant by the temple. Even assuming he was a lawful inducted tenant of the temple, the other question is as to whether he would entitle to sub-lease the property or hand over the possession of the property to the petitioner, without the knowledge or written consent of the temple. Lease and licence of temple properties are to be done in the manner as contemplated under the provisions of the H.R. & C.E., Act. The same should be backed by a valid resolution of the Board of Trustees and approved by the competent authority under the Act. There are no records produced by the petitioner to show that any of the requirements have been fulfilled. The same should be backed by a valid resolution of the Board of Trustees and approved by the competent authority under the Act. There are no records produced by the petitioner to show that any of the requirements have been fulfilled. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is an encroacher. 18. During 2008, when there was a case registered for theft of energy by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, some arrangements appear to have been made between the third respondent and the petitioner. This, according to the third respondent, is because the temple was served with demand of more than Rs.4,00,000/- for the illegal theft of energy committed by the petitioner. Based on such arrangements, the matter appears to have been settled in the Lok Adalat. The effect, purport and intent of the agreement have not been established to the satisfaction of this Court to show that the agreement conferred tenancy right on the petitioner. From the averments made in the documents filed by the third respondent in the typed set of papers, it is seen that the agreement is for the purpose of receiving a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the petitioner and out of which a sum of Rs.35,140/- was paid to the Electricity Board towards fine in a settlement before the Lok Adalat in A.S.No.202 of 2008. By virtue of such settlement, the petitioner was exonerated. If, according to the petitioner, he was a lawfully inducted tenant of the temple property, then the petitioner should have contested the claim made by the Electricity Board. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrayed as the third defendant in O.S.No.711 of 2003 and appears to have not contested the suit, but remained as a silent spectator, as the suit filed by the third respondent was dismissed by Judgment dated 06.08.2008. When the third respondent preferred an appeal in A.S.No.202 of 2008, an issue arose as to how the matter could be settled and for which purpose an agreement was entered into, wherein payment of Rs.40,000/- has been acknowledged. If, according to the petitioner, he had a lawful right to enjoy the property, he should have contested the appeal by setting up a clear stand that he is a cultivating tenant. Rather, the petitioner gave up all his alleged claims prior to 2008 and consciously executed an Othi deed for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. If, according to the petitioner, he had a lawful right to enjoy the property, he should have contested the appeal by setting up a clear stand that he is a cultivating tenant. Rather, the petitioner gave up all his alleged claims prior to 2008 and consciously executed an Othi deed for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The validity of which came to an end on 31.08.2010. Therefore, the Othi deed assumes significant in the light of the events, which have been taken place after the Othi deed culminating in a joint memo of compromise recorded in A.S.No.202 of 2008. Therefore, it is held that the authorities under the H.R. & C.E. Act had jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 78 of the Act for evicting the petitioner. 19. The prime contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent failed to afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner. From a reading of the order, dated 18.07.2003, passed by the second respondent, it is seen that the petitioner received notice, appeared through his counsel, undertook to file his counter affidavit. However, that undertaking was not adhered to and the authority has clearly recorded that the petitioner failed to utilize the opportunity in spite of sufficient time having been granted. Therefore, in the absence of any record to prove that the petitioner is a lawful tenant of the said temple property, the Authority decided that he is an encroacher. The petitioner having appeared before the Authority along with his counsel, undertook to file counter affidavit and contest the matter, failed to utilize the opportunity granted despite more than three adjournments. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to state that there are violation of principles of natural justice. A person, who has failed to avail the opportunity without reasonable cause, cannot plead denial of opportunity. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed a revision petition, under Section 21 of the Act, and raised all his contentions regarding denial of opportunity. The Revisional Authority/first respondent, after hearing the learned counsels for parties and perusing the entire materials, recorded a factual finding that the Othi deed was only from 01.09.2008 to 31.08.2010 and such transaction was against the provisions of the H.R. & C.E., Act and the same having been made without prior sanction of the Commissioner and therefore the transaction itself is null and void. In fact, the first respondent also found fault with the third respondent for having entered into such Othi deed, without sanction of the Commissioner. Further, the first respondent, by relying upon the decision of this Court in K.V. Pushpavalli v. Arulmighu Theerthabaleeswarar Devasthanam, reported in 2006 (3) LW 701 , held that any possession of the land belonging to a religious institution in the hands of any person without express permission of the Commissioner, as required under Section 34 of the Act, is per se illegal and tantamounts to encroachment, which will squarely fall within the meaning of 'encroacher' as contemplated under Section 78 of the Act. Therefore, the first respondent concluded that the petitioner is an encroacher. In the light of the cogent reasons assigned and the discussions as stated above, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the first respondent. 20. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.