Govindasamy v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Nungambakkam
2020-10-09
ANITA SUMANTH
body2020
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : (Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.7141/2018/Aa2 dated 08.02.2019 and quash the same, consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to consider the Tenancy of the petitioners for their residential houses situated in Survey No.25 of Parthipuram Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, based on their Application dated 14.08.2018.) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth the claim of the petitioner as landless poor residing in house plot at S.No.25 of Parithipuram Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District (property/premises in question). They claim to have resided in the property for more than 25 years and also state that they have been remitting house tax, electricity charges for the connections provided and land tax on the basis of B memos that have been issued. They also hold ration and voter ID cards to evidence their residence in the premises in question. The property was originally classified as Government Poramboke as per ‘A’ Register and has thereafter, vide judgment dated 16.02.1971 in A.S.No.49 of 1965 been held to belong to the fourth respondent, i.e., Fit Person, ArulmiguPachiswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai District (Temple). 2. A dispute arose in the year 1961 in regard to the title to the property and the trustees of the Temple approached the District Munsif Court in O.S.No.267 of 1961 seeking a declaration that the Temple held the title to the property in question. The Suit came to be dismissed on 29.11.1963 as against which, Appeal Suit in A.S.No.49 of 1965 was filed by the Trustees that came to be allowed on 16.02.1971. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai/R5 filed a Second Appeal before this Court in S.A.No.1874 of 1972 and the same came to be dismissed on 28.04.1982. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Temple points out that some of the defendants arrayed in the Suit proceedings O.S.No.67 of 1961 are related to the present petitioners, for instance, Gopal Gounder arrayed as D12 is the husband of the 4th petitioner before me, Allimuthu Gounder, arrayed as D15 is the grandfather of the 3rd petitioner and Govinda Gounder, arrayed as D22 is the father of the 2nd petitioner. 4.
4. While the Suit proceedings were on-going, all the petitioners in this Writ Petition including Saravanan, husband of Manjula, 15th petitioner and Chandran, husband of Muniyammal, 16th petitioner before me, along with two others Shankar and Lakshmi, who are not petitioners here, filed I.A.No.13/2016 in E.P.No. 66/1980 in terms of Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 as third parties, seeking to obstruct the on-going Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.66 of 1980 in O.S.No.267 of 1961 before the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. 5. The Principal District Munsif rejected the application on 26.10.2016 as follows: “TAMIL” 6. The Court noticed that in C.R.P.Nos.282 of 1981 and 2462 of 1991, this Court had, vide orders dated 20.04.1982 and 09.03.1998, conclusively held that the title to the property in question vests in the Temple and that all occupants in the property were encroachers. There is no dispute with regard to this factual position. 7. The same petitioners as before me now had filed W.P.No.22105 of 2018 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents and the Temple to consider the request for tenancy in the house in S.No.25 based on their application/representation dated 14.08.2018. The Writ Petition was disposed with the learned single Judge stating at paragraph 5 that ‘Incontrovertibly, the petitioners do not have any independent right over the property in question and they claim tenancy merely based on their possession for over a long number of years’. The respondent was however directed to dispose the representation that was rejected on 08.02.2019 reiterating the sequence of events that I have noticed above as against which the present Writ Petition has been filed. 8. Perhaps it is on account of the above undisputed position that the petitioners claim only tenancy rights in the land citing their long and sustained stay. The present petition is only a prayer for mercy disguised as a writ petition, the petitioners praying that they be permitted to continue their encroachment in the premises in question. 9. In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I see no merit whatsoever in the challenge to order dated 08.02.2019. The Joint Commissioner has considered the request for tenancy and rejected the same and I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
9. In the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I see no merit whatsoever in the challenge to order dated 08.02.2019. The Joint Commissioner has considered the request for tenancy and rejected the same and I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The property in question has been in illegal occupation by the present petitioners/their fore fathers as well as others for more than four decades and it is high time that the properties were restored to the Temple to be deployed in gainful use. 10. This Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Consequently, the interim protection granted vide order dated 22.01.2020 stands vacated. Proceedings in Execution Petition will be concluded expeditiously and taken to their logical conclusion at the earliest. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner incidentally requests that the District Collector may consider housing the petitioners at an alternate site and also cites certain Welfare Schemes though no specifics thereof are placed before me. The petitioners may approach the Government separately seeking alternate relief. I make it clear that the aforesaid observation will in no way stand in the way of the Temple authorities and the official respondents from pursuing the pending proceedings for Execution before the Principal District Munsif at Tiruvannamalai, and the same shall be concluded expeditiously and without further delay.