HR & CE Authorities Must Take Action On Complaints Of Encroachment, Not Put It In Cold Storage Making Deities Yearn For Due Share: Madras HC

Justice M Dhandapani made the remarks after noting that due to inaction on the part of HR & CE officials, encroachers often enjoyed land to the detriment of the deity. The court emphasised that when an application was filed under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, the authorities were to take immediate steps and ensure that the encroachments are removed and the lawful owners are benefitted.

“It is to be stressed that when Section 78 applications are filed, the HR & CE authorities are duty bound to act on the same immediately and not put the same in cold storage, as the predominant purpose of such applications is to see that encroachments are removed and the lawful owner stands to benefit. The HR & CE authorities do not act on the Section 78 applications diligently, the intent and purpose of such dedication would get eroded and encroachers would have a field day by encroaching upon the said lands making the deities yearn for its due share which had been bestowed upon it from persons out of benevolence and devotion to the deity,” the court said.

The court also added that though a specific time limit has not been provided under the HR & CE Act for disposing the petitions, the authorities were expected to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible as it is a facet of administrative procedure. The court said that if such expeditious action is not taken, the encroachers would have a field day by occupying the lands that belong to the deity and thereby the purpose for which the lands are earmarked cannot be fulfilled.

The court was hearing a plea against an order of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department ordering eviction of the petitioners from a land alleged to be temple land.

The petitioners informed the court that they got the property through their grandmother who in turn got the property by way of a sale deed in 1940. The petitioners contended that in 1956, the then trustees of the temple had instituted a suit claiming that the property belonged to Swamy Perumal Temple but the suit was dismissed as the court noted that the temple trustees had not produced any document to support their case. they further contended that after almost 60 years, the HR & CE officials and the fit person of the temple filed miscellaneous petition claiming that the petitioners had encroached into temple property.

The petitioners contended that the Joint Commissioner of HR & CE Department passed orders in favour of the Fit person without giving necessary opportunity to the petitioners to produce their evidence. It was thus contended that order of the Joint Commissioner was arbitrary, unreasonable, perverse and against the principles of natural justice. It was also submitted that while a review was pending before the HR & CE Commissioner, the petitioners were served an eviction notice.

The respondents, on the other hand argued that the title of the property was not decided in the earlier suit and thus the matter was not barred by res judicata. It was submitted that though the suit was dismissed the court had held that right and title of the property with the petitioner's grandmother was not proved. It was also submitted that the property was granted as personal inam and could not have dwelled upon the grandmother of the petitioners.

On going through the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, the court was satisfied that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioners before passing the order and in spite of sufficient opportunity, the petitioners had not diligently partaken in the proceedings. The court thus observed that the petitioners failed to utilise the opportunities granted to them and could not now come to court with stained hands claiming that they were not given opportunity.

On going through the documents, the court concluded that the land was a service tenure inam and so could be enjoyed for as long as the holder was rendering service to the deity. The court thus held that the claim of the petitioners was wholly erroneous as even if it was presumed to be a purchase, the purchase was from a person who had no title over the property.

Thus, holding the order of the Commissioner to be just, reasonable and legally sustainable, the court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the order and thus dismissed the petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. N.G.R.Prasad, for M/s. S.Sivakumar

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, S.G.P, Mr. H.S.M.Hasan Faizal, AGP, Mr.Karthikeyan, GA (HR & CE),

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 432

Case Title: M Samudi v The District Collector and Others

Case No: W.P. NO. 25908 OF 2024