BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E.ADMN.DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-34. Tuesday the 4 th day of April, Two thousand and Seventeen. Present: Dr.M.Veera Shanmugha Moni, Commissioner. R.P.169/2017 D2 Between Mohanraj...Petitioner And 1.The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn.Department, Coimbatore. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Admn.Department, Tirupur. 3. The Fit person/ Executive Officer, Arulmighu Thanthondreeswarar Temple, Kokkampalayam, Dharapuram taluk, Tirupur....Respondents In the matter of Arulmighu Thanthondreeswarar Temple, Kokkampalayam, Dharapuram taluk, Tirupur. The Revision Petition filed under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) against the order dated 21.04.2015 of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn.Department, Coimbatore in M.P.No. 95/2014 passed under Section 78 of the Act. Order in D.Dis.R.P.169/2017 D2 dated: 04.04.2017 The above Revision petition came up for final hearing before me on 07.03.2017 Thiru.E.Ganesh, Counsel for the petitioner and Thiru.R.Bharanidharan, counsel for the 3 rd respondent. Upon hearing his arguments and having perused the connected records and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed. ORDER The above Revision petitions filed under Section 21 of the Act against the order dated 21.4.2015 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Coimbatore under Section 78 of the Act.
2 2. The petitioner contended that the agricultural lands comprised in Old S.F.No.123 in Kokkampalayam village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District measuring an extent of 8.11 acres belongs to the petiitoenr. She is performing agricultural activities in the said lands and by utilizing the income derived from the said lands, the livelihood of the petitioner has been met out. The petitioner purchased the subject lands from one Mayilammal vide a registered Deed in Doc.No.792/1987 registered at office of Sub-Registrar, Dharapuram. Since then, the petitioner is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the subject land without any let or hindrance and disturbance from anybody. On 5.6.2015 and 8.6.2015, the 3 rd respondent came to the said lands claiming that the land belongs to the Arulmigu Thanthonreeswaraswamy temple. In order to prevent the interference by the 3 rd respondent, the petitioner filed a suit along with the others, who are having common interest, against the respondents herein seeking for declaration to declare the petitioner as the absolute owner in O.S.No.505/2015 before District Munsif Court, Dharapuram and the above suit is pending for adjudication. The 2 nd respondent along with about 40 persons came to the subject land on 19.10.2015 and attempted to forcibly disposes the petitioner. They have also furnished a photo copy of the the impugned order. It is learnt that the 1 st respondent without arraying the petitioner as a party to the proceedings has passed an order of eviction. The petitioner s predecessors in tile was also in lawful possession and enjoyment of the above said property for more than100 years and their right and enjoyment was also upheld by court of Law. Without verifying the records and with a
3 malafide intention the impugned eviction proceedings was concluded without arraying the petitioner as a party to the proceedings. The impugned order is liable to be setaside on the ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to participate in the enquiry conducted in terms of Section 78 of TNHR&CE Act. The Joint Commissioner has failed to conduct proceedings under Section 78 of the Act as stipulated under Rule 5 of the Removal of encroachment of lands or buildings belonging to the Religious Institutions Rules 1962. The Joint Commissioner has not examined the witnesses or taken oral or documentary evidence while passing the impugned order except relying upon Ispe Dixit of the report of the Assistant Commissioner, as such, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order seemed to have passed on the assumption that the subject lands are temple lands on the basis of the patta stated to be stand in the name of the temple. Assuming not admitting, even the patta stood in the name of the temple it would not confer any title or better title to the temple on the account that the petitioner and his predecessors in title are enjoying the property as absolute owners for more than 150 years and holds title deeds relating back to 1815. Apart from that, the judgment of the Civil Court vis-à-vis title dispute pertains to the subject lands relate back to 1913. It is we settled principle of law that the patta is not a title to the property and in order to establish that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property on the basis of the records and facts as discussed above.
4 3. I heard Thiru.E.Ganesh, Counsel for the petitioners and Thiru.R.Bharanidharan, Counsel for the 3 rd respondent and perused the relevant records. The delay of 490 days in filing the Revision Petition is hereby condoned. The suit properties were part of grant made by the then British Government under title deed No.2391, vested with the temple as Inam lands and patta has been issued in the name of the deities. In all the revenue records the properties stand in the name of respondent temple. But the petitioner had purchased the property from one Mayilammal believing that she was the lawful owner. After passing of the impugned order, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.505/2015 before the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram to declare him as the absolute owner of the suit properties. The Joint Commissioner has satisfied himself that the temple has better title over the property and the petitioner had encroached upon the property. He has occupied the property without any valid lease or sanction from the competent authority. Therefore the possession of the petitioner is unlawful and amounts to encroachment as contemplated under Section 78 of the Act. Accordingly the Joint Commissioner rightly decided the case and ordered to evict the encroachers. 4. In pursuant to the impugned order, the properties were taken possession by the respondent temple. Thereafter the 3 rd respondent was permitted to lease out the properties in public auction by the order of the Commissioner in L.Dis No.55866/2015/M2 dated 30.12.2015. Hence I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the order dated 21.4.2015 of the Joint Commissioner, Coimbatore is hereby confirmed.
5 5. At the time of enquiry on 07.03.2017, the petitioner has submitted that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this forum and to withdraw the cases filed by him, if lease is sanctioned in his favour. The same has been taken into consideration as the said properties were developed by the petitioner and also under long enjoyment of the petitioner. Further the temple is not getting any income from the said properties. Though it was ordered in the month of December 2015 to lease out the property in public auction, the properties had not yet been leased out, as the prevailing situation in the village was not conducive to conduct public auction. Hence considering the interest of the temple and to avoid further income loss, it is decided to let out the property to the petitioner by invoking power conferred under Rule 11 of the Religious Institutions (Lease of immovable property) Rules 1963. Accordingly the 3 rd respondent is permitted to lease out the property to the petitioner for one year for an amount of Rs.8500/- per acre per annum, for damages towards use and occupation with an annual increase of 10% subject to the condition that the petitioner should withdraw all the cases filed against the temple and also execute a lease deed accepting all the conditions imposed by the temple. With the above directions the Revision Petition is hereby disposed of. /typed to dictation/ /t.c.f.b.o./ Sd./- M.Veera Shanmugha Moni Commissioner Superintendent
To 1. The Petitioners through Thiru.E.Ganesh, Advocate, No.61/23, Sakthi Avenue, South Lock Street, Kottur, (Near Kotturpuram Railway Station), Chennai-600 085. New Law Chambers, High court, Chennai-104. 2. The 3 rd respondent through Thiru.R.Bharanidharan, Advocate, 25, Law Chambers, High Court Building, Chennai 600 104. Copy to 3. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Admn.Dept., Coimbatore. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Admn.Dept.,Tirupur. 5. Extra 6