Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 227 (MAD)

Special Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department v. P. Velusamy

2016-01-21

P.DEVADASS, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2016
ORDER : P. Devadass, J. The Special Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, who is the first respondent in W.P.No.5133 of 2009 seeks condonation of delay of 1,521 days caused in preferring the Writ Appeal against the order of the Writ Court dated 28.4.2009. 2. The petitioner, in his affidavit, narrated the steps taken by the Department in preferring the Writ Appeal as against the order of the Writ Court dated 28.4.2009 and reasons have also been stated as to how the delay has occurred. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that vast extent of lands have been sought to be registered in the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner without getting 'No Objection Certificate' from the Temple Authorities. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the temple has control over the properties. It is the duty of the Temple Authorities to protect the properties of the Deities and Temples, however, this aspect has been overlooked by the Writ Court and very many legal issues are involved in this Writ Appeal, in such circumstances, an opportunity may be given to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the second and third respondents have also reiterated these submissions. 4. The first respondent filed counter opposing the prayer of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the first respondent also submitted that there is enormous delay, it has not been explained satisfactorily, in the circumstances, no indulgence be shown to the petitioner. 5. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the affidavits and the materials on record. 6. In order to protect the temple lands, the HR&CE Department issued a Circular dated 3.11.2007, directing its Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners to inform the Registration Authorities not to register documents pertaining to properties of Religious Institutions presented by private persons. 7. One Velusamy, claimed to be a co-owner in respect of vast extent of land comprised in Survey Nos.2 and 3 situate in Mookanankurichi Village, Karur Taluk, Karur. He could not register the Sale Deed in view of the Circular dated 3.11.2007 of HR&CE Department. Thus, he filed WP No. 5133 of 2009 for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said Circular. 8. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department contended that it is a temple property, without getting 'No Objection Certificate' from the Temple Authorities, the Registration Authorities cannot register the documents. 9. Thus, he filed WP No. 5133 of 2009 for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said Circular. 8. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department contended that it is a temple property, without getting 'No Objection Certificate' from the Temple Authorities, the Registration Authorities cannot register the documents. 9. The Writ Court, referring to the list of properties furnished by the Temple Authorities, did not go into the validity or otherwise of the Circular dated 3.11.2007 and accordingly disposed of the writ petition. 10. In this matter, certain legal issues raised by the HR&CE Department are involved. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is not the length of delay but substance matters. In these matters a pragmatic rather than a pedantic approach is required. In the facts and circumstances of this case, an opportunity could be given to the petitioner. But, at the same time, the prejudice caused to the first respondent is required to be compensated by awarding him costs. 11. Having regard to the question of law involved herein and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 1,521 days in preferring the Writ Appeal is condoned, subject to the payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the first respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the said amount shall be recovered from the Officials, who are responsible for causing the delay. In the event of any failure on the part of the petitioner in making the payment of costs within the stipulated time, this miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to this Court.