V.Angu.. v. The Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-600 0342
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Administration of Agricultural Lands Act, 1961
- Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of TenancyRights Act, 1969
- Tamilnadu Public Trusts(Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act
- Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record ofTenancy Rights Act
- Administration of AgriculturalLands Act
- Public Trust Act
- Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
- Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, 1959 s. 34
- Tamil Nadu Public Trust Act s. 19
- Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Act, 1959
- Tamil Nadu PublicTrust Act
- Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, 1959
- Tamilnadu Public Trust Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 09.02.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMAW.P.No.16904 of 2011& M.P.No.1 of 2011V.Angu.. PetitionerVs.
The CommissionerHindu Religious & CharitableEndowment DepartmentNungambakkam High RoadChennai-600 0342.Desanatheswarar Templerep. by its Executive OfficerHokenakkal, Dharmapuri District .... RespondentsWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiafor issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents frominterfering with petitioner possession of an extent of 7 acres ofland in S.No.1099, Ootamalai Village, Hoigenekkal Taluk, DharmapuriDistrict without recourse to the proceedings under the Tamil NaduPublic Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands)Act (57 of 1961). For Petitioner : Mr.R.SubramanianFor Respondents : Mr.R.Kannan Govt. Advocate for TNHR&CE*****
O R D E RPetitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuanceof writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the notice issued bythe 2nd respondent for leasing out the land of Temple to the extent of7 acres in possession of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The petitioner is the cultivating tenant of 7 acres of landin S.No.1099 of Ootamalai village, Hogenekkal Taluk. The landadmittedly belong to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is inpossession of the land for more than 25 years and is regularly payingthe lease rent.
The petitioner as per the pleadings in the affidavit has paidrent upto 29.02.2000. Thereafter 2nd respondent refused to accept anyfurther lease rent. The petitioner therefore moved an application inthis court in pending W.P.No.4071 of 2001 and it was under theinterim direction of this court the petitioner paid the subsequentrent.
The case of the petitioner is that as there was a disputerelating to his tenancy, the petitioner applied to Record Officer tomake entries under the Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of TenancyRights Act, 1969 for recording his name as cultivating tenant.
The Record Officer vide order dated 2.11.1992, entered thename of the petitioner as cultivating tenant.
However, keeping in view the order was passed without noticeto the HR&CE Department, the application moved by the petitioner wasadjudicated again on 01.02.1993.
The Record Officer again entered the name of the petitionerin the record as cultivating tenant in respect of 7 acres of land.
The petitioner submits that as he is the cultivating tenant, thus entitled to protection under the Tamilnadu Public Trusts(Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act (hereinaftercalled the Act) and cannot be evicted from the land except byfollowing procedure laid down under the said Act. 9. 2nd respondent- Temple on an earlier occasion had conductedauction on 20.02.2001. The petitioner being aggrieved challenged thesaid auction in this court by filing W.P.No.4071 of 2001, whereinauction was stayed, but subsequently writ was dismissed asinfructous. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2ndrespondent cannot be permitted to auction the land in possession ofthe petitioner being protected tenant, unless he is evicted inaccordance with the procedure laid down under the Act. 11. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel for thepetitioner referred to The Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act 10 of 1969, which provides that the Government bynotification can direct the preparation of a record of tenancy rights https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for such village or villages as may be specified in the notification.
The record shall be prepared, maintained and revised in accordancewith the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Therecording of the name in the record maintained leads to a conclusionthat the petitioner is a cultivating tenant over the land sorecorded. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Tamilnadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of AgriculturalLands) Act to contend that the cultivating tenant under the Act is aperson who contributes his own physical labour or any member of hisfamily in the cultivation of any land belonging to one under thetenancy agreement, express or implied and also includes any suchperson who continues to be in possession of the land after thedetermination of the tenancy agreement. It also includes the heir ofsuch person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or thatof any member of his family in the cultivation of such land, but doesnot include a mere intermediary of his heir.13.
Public Trust defined under this Act, includes any temple, math, mosque, church or other place. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner after referring to thedefinition of cultivating tenant under the Public Trust Act alsoreferred to Section 3 of this Act, to contend that the provisions ofthis Act have over riding effect on any other law for the time beingin force, or any custom, usage or contract or decree or order of aCourt or authority. Finally reference was made to Section 19 of the Act to contend, that the tenant can only be evicted as per provisionscontained in the Act, which is further subject to appeal andrevision. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner isthat the respondent has no right to auction the land in possession ofthe petitioner as cultivating tenant.16. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner, that while recording the tenant in the record of rightthe Recording officer is entitled to record even the tenant under the Public trust.
17. Writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearingon behalf of the 2nd respondent, by contending that name of thepetitioner in record of right was registered without notice to 2ndrespondent, therefore does not give him any right of tenancy. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Section 34 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsAct, 1959, which reads as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "34. Alienation of immovable trust property: (1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any leasefor a term exceeding five years of any immovableproperty, belonging to, or given or endowed forthe purposes of, any religious institution shallbe null and void unless it is sanctioned by (the Commissioner) as being necessary or beneficial tothe institution: Provided that before such sanction isaccorded, the particulars relating to theproposed transaction shall be published in suchmanner as may be prescribed, inviting objectionsand suggestions with respect thereto; and allobjections and suggestions received from thetrustee or other persons having interest shall beduly considered by (the Commissioner).The contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent isthat Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959,being a Special Act would over ride the provisions of General Lawunder other statutes.
The contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner being contrary to Section 34 reproduced above thereforecannot be accepted in Law.19. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in this writpetition. Section 34 of Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, 1959 referred to above imposes a Statutory baragainst tenancy over five years, unless and until it is so approvedby the Commissioner by way of special order. 20. The Tamil Nadu Public Trust Act does not prescribe anylimitation for holding of tenancy and only deals with the leasegranted and terms there of for the purpose of enforcement of right ofthe tenancy under the Act.21. Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trust Act, therefore hasto be read in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 22. Once there is no provisions under the Tamil Nadu PublicTrust Act being contrary to Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, 1959, it cannot have a over riding effect.
The 2ndrespondent as landlord cannot lease out the property for more thanfive years, as any tenancy over five years has to be treated as nulland void. The case put up by the petitioner himself is that he is thetenant in possession of the property for more than 25 years though hecontinued to be in possession under the interim direction passed bythis court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
It is well settled law that the statute over rides thecontract. Once it is not disputed that 2nd respondent is a registeredtemple under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsAct, 1959 and is governed by provisions of the Act, no lease beyondfive years can be granted or recognised being null and void. On jointreading of provisions of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments Act, 1959, and Tamil Nadu Public Trust Act leads to onlyone conclusion, that in the given case the tenant can enforce hisright under the Public Trust Act for a period of five years and notmore as lease beyond said period is null and void as per statute. Even otherwise Tamilnadu Public Trust Act deals with all the tenants, whereas the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 is a special Act dealing with temples registered under the Act. The lease beyond 5 years therefore is to be treated as null and void.
No merits. Dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The CommissionerHindu Religious & CharitableEndowment DepartmentNungambakkam High RoadChennai-600 0342.The Executive OfficerDesanatheswarar TempleHokenakkal, Dharmapuri District1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.86761 CC to M/s.R.Subramanian, Advocate, SR.8577W.P.No.16904 of 2011PPA(CO)SRA(20/03/2012)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Administration of Agricultural Lands Act, 1961; Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record of TenancyRights Act, 1969; Tamilnadu Public Trusts(Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act; Tamilnadu Agricultural Lands Record ofTenancy Rights Act; Administration of AgriculturalLands Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 09 Feb 2012. The bench was VINOD K SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.