“Benevolent Object”: Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Leasing Of 2.5 Acres Temple Land For Building College

Justice M Dhandapani noted that on perusal, the impugned order appeared to be for a benevolent object. The court noted that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage when the petitioner had the option to raise his grievance before the appropriate authority. The court thus gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department with his objections/suggestions and directed the authorities to consider the same on merits.

“On scrutiny of the notification, which is impugned herein reveals that subject temple lands are meant for a long-term lease to run a college, and thus, the object is a benevolent one. When that be so, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner intends to point out some irregularities or procedural deviations committed by the respondents, the same can be submitted before the 1st respondent by way of written objections/suggestions and hence this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned notification at this stage,” the court observed.

The petitioner, TR Ramesh had approached the court to quash the notice issued in the Tamil News Paper Makkal Kural relating to the proposed lease of the temple land. The petitioner argued that the statutory requirements under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959 were not complied by the authorities. These requirements included obtaining approval for alienation and publishing mandatory information relating to the lease.

The Special Government Pleader for the HR&CE department submitted that subsequent to the resolution, the Executive Officer of the temple had appointed Trustees and therefore no prejudice was caused to the temple land. It was also informed that due procedure would be followed at the time of entering into the lease and that any person aggrieved by the notification could approach the authorities to submit their written objections/suggestions. Thus, claiming that the notification was legally sustainable, he sought the dismissal of the plea.

The court thus disposed of the plea directing the petitioner to submit his written objections and suggestions before the HR & CE Department on or before October 9, 2024, and directed the department to consider the same.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for M/s.G.R. Associates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.N.R.R. Arun Natarajan Spl. Govt. Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

Case Title: TR Ramesh v The Commissioner, HR & CE and others

Case No: W.P. No.29684 of 2024