✦ Madras High Court · 17 Dec 2009

T.V. Lalitha v. The Chief Secretary to Government & Ors

Ti No. 2007 of 1739R SUDHAKAR5 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
17 Dec 2009
Bench
R SUDHAKAR

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.12.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARW.P.No.7439 of 2008and W.P.M.P.No.2 of 2008T.V.Lalitha ... Petitioner. Vs.

1.

The Chief Secretary to Government, Rep. to the Union Territory of Government of Puducherry, Toubert Avenue, Puducherry.

2.

The Secretary to Government, (Hindu Religious Institution), Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 012.

3.

The Additional Secretary to Government-cum-Collector (HRI), Revenue Complex, Saram, Puducherry - 605 012.

4.

The Under Secretary to Government-cum-Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions, 250, Laustion street, Puducherry.

5.

The Assistant Director, National Archieves of India, Government of India, Jeevanandhapuram, Puducherry Branch Office, Puducherry – 605 008.

6.

The Director, Department of Art & Culture, Goubert Avenue, Puducherry.... Respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records on the file of the fourth respondent relating to the order issued in 767/CHRI/TI/2007/1739 dated 31.08.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to alienate the land situated in Thattachavady Revenue Village (34) Pondicherry Taluk, comprising in R.S.No.218/B to the extent of 00.28.00 Ares at the reasonable rate, in favour of the petitioner, as per the Govt.notification issued on 11.03.1989 under Sec.25 (1) of the PondicherryHindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 For Petitioner : Dr.R.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : No appearance

O R D E RThe writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records on the file of the fourth respondent relating to the order issued in 767/CHRI/TI/20071739 dated31.08.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to alienate the land situated in Thattachavady Revenue Village(34) Pondicherry Taluk, comprising in R.S.No.218/B to the extent of00.28.00 Ares at the reasonable rate, in favour of the petitioner, asper the Govt. notification issued on 11.03.1989 under Sec.25 (1) of the Pondicherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 2. Though the writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institution, Government of Puducherry. In view of the subsequent event, the petitioner prays that she will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of land as per notice dated 2.3.1989 in his proceedingsNo.2720/,rep/nfh/5/88-89, Puducherry.

The brief of the facts are as follows: 3. The petitioner is running a school from the year 1973catering to the needs of the poor children of the locality, atcadastre No.2274 in Thattachavady Village, Puducherry. In order to extend the operation of the school and to provide many additional amenities to the children, the petitioner approached the President, Arulmigu Muthumariamman Temple at Muthulingapet, Puducherry in February 1978 seeking lease of the temple land. Accepting the said request, the temple lands were leased out to the petitioner for the period of 4.2.1978 to 30.2.1989. Thereafter, the temple went into the control of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pudhucherry and therefore, the petitioner requested the authorities for sale of the land and said request was considered by the authorities and a notice dated 02.03.1989 was published on the vernacular "Daily Thanthi" on 11.03.1989 calling for objections from public in this regard.

In the mean while, it appears that the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions, respondent herein took steps, to lease the very same land in favour of other Departments. The request of the petitioner was not considered. In the year of 31August 2007, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions, puducherry, passed the following order and communicated the same to the Assistant Director of Puducherry and the said order as reads as follows: "ToPuducherry 31 AUG 2007 The Assistant Director of Archives, National Archives of India, Record Centre, Jeevanandapuram, Lawspet, Puducherry-605 008. Sir, Sub: Acquisition of adjacent land in R.S.No.218/B by the National Archives of India, Record Centre, Puducherry – NOC – Reg. Ref: Letter No.No.NAI(P)-1/2004/Admn. Dated 08.08.2006, 13.04.2007 and 01.06.2007 from the Assistant Director of Archives, National Archives of India, Puducherry.I am to invite your kind reference to the letter cited on the subject mentioned above and inform that this office has "no objection" to acquire only the temple lands described below, under the Land Acquisition Act,1894, for the construction of Staff Quartersas well as expansion of existing office building.

Sl.NoRevenue VillageR.S.No.ExtentH.A.C.Ownership of theland1ThattanchavadyRevenue Village218/B00.21.00HectsSri MuthumariammanTemple, Mughuligapet, Puducherry.2.I am to request that the amount of compensation to the above mentioned land may be sent to this office by means of cheque https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ drawn in favour of "The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Insitutions, Puducherry on account of Sri Muthumariamman Temple, Muthulingapet, Puducherry. Yours faithfully,(S.THULASIRAMAN) COMMISSIONERHINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS"4. The petitioner is now aggrieved stating that the land which was intended to be sold to the petitioner for the benefit of the school is being acquired for the National Archives of India, Department. Hence, the writ petition. Notice was issued to the fifth respondent/Assistant Director of National Archives of India, Puducherry, and a counter affidavit is filed.

At the time of final hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a letter dated1.7.08 from the 5th respondent which reads as follows: "F.NO.NAI(P)I-1/2004/Admn. National Archieves of IndiaRecord Centre, JeevanathapuramLawspet, Puducherry 605 008.E-mail : nairc-pondy @ dataone.in Puducherry, Dated: 01.07.2008ToThe DirectorArt & Culture Deptt.,Government of PuducherryPuducherry. Sub:NAI, RC, Puducherry- Acquisition of adjacent land measuring 0.21 hectares- Acquisition Process-Withdrawal from offer of purchase/acquisition process-intimation-Reg. Ref:1) This office letter of even No. dated 01.11.07.2) Your letter No.1426/DAC/Scheme/S2/2008 Dated 27.05.08.Madam,I am directed to inform that the offer to purchase the landin question through land acquisition may be treated as withdrawn due to high cost of the same as intimated by the Govt. of Puducherry videletter second cited under reference.

This Department is not interested in purchasing the land any longer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hence, it is requested that this fact may kindly be intimated to the Revenue Department duly. Yours faithfully, Assistant Director of ArchivesGovernment of India. Copy to 1) The Commissioner of Hindu Religious institutions, Puducherry2)The Director General of Archieves, Naional Archieves of India, Janpath, New Delhi. "5. It is pleaded that in view of the change circumstances, and subsequent event whereby the National Archives of India has clearly stated that they are not interested in purchasing the land, due to high cost and having withdrawn the proposal, the plea of the petitioner for sale of land in their favour should be considered on merits. 6. The letter dated 01.07.2008 by the National Archives of India has now changed the situation. In view of the above, the petitioner can be given an opportunity to make a representation to the Department of Hindu Religious Institutions, Government of Puducherry, or to the Secretary to Government, Hindu ReligiousInstitutions, Puducherry for renewing his request for sale or lease of the property if otherwise available.

Such representation should be considered and disposed of on merits in a reasonable time preferably by end of March 2010. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarvsmTo1.The Chief Secretary The Union Territory of Government of Puducherry, Toubert Avenue, Puducherry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Secretary to Government, (Hindu Religious Institution), Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 012.3. The Additional Secretary to Government-cum-Collector (HRI), Revenue Complex, Saram, Puducherry - 605 012. 4. The Under Secretary to Government-cum-Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions, 250, Laustion street, Puducherry.5. The Assistant Director, National Archieves of India, Government of India, Jeevanandhapuram, Puducherry Branch Office, Puducherry – 605 008.6. The Director, Department of Art & Culture, Goubert Avenue, Puducherry.+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Chandrasekaran, Advocate SR 69702W.P.No.7439 of 2008AR (CO)RH (19.1.10)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; PondicherryHindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 — s. 25(1); Pondicherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 — s. 25(1); Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Madras High Court, on 17 Dec 2009. The bench was R SUDHAKAR.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Ti No. 2007 of 1739). ← Search more judgments