Senthil Kumar v. The Executive Officer,Arulmighu Chindambareswarar Temple,Nedungulam Village,Thitakudi

W.P.No. 17770 of 2014IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 08.04.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYANW.P.No.17770 of 2014 andM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 Senthil Kumar.. Petitioner VersusThe Executive Officer, Arulmighu Chindambareswarar Temple, Nedungulam Village, Thitakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District..RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent not to conduct any public auction on 04.07.2014 or any other dates in respect of the lands measuring 4 acres out of 5.89.5 hectares comprised in Survey Nos.26/1 and 26/4 of Kumarai Village, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Balasubramanian For Respondent: Mr.K. Karthikeyan Government AdvocateORDER1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 17770 of 2014 This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent not to conduct any public auction on 04.07.2014 or any other dates in respect of the lands measuring 4 acres out of 5.89.5 hectares comprised in Survey Nos.26/1 and 26/4 of Kumarai Village, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District and pass orders.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken lease from the Arulmigu Chidambareswarar Vahaira temple for the lands in Survey No.26/1 and 26/4 of Kumarai Village, Thittakudi, Virudachalam, measuring 4 acres out of 5.89.5 hectares. The grievance of the petitioner is that he and his predecessors have taken lease and doing agricultural work in the said lands. Upto the year 2007 the petitioner has paid the lease amount for which receipts was also issued by the temple administration. Further more the respondents are trying to evict the petitioner from his possession by conducting public action on 04.07.2014. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition not to conduct the public auction. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 17770 of 20143. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is properly paying the lease amount and there was no default on the part of the petitioner.

There was also no objection by the temple administration while receiving the lease amount. All of sudden the respondent attempting to evict the petitioner by conducting the public auction is not acceptable. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the said temple is a small village temple and the lands are endowed to the temple for upkeep and maintenance of the temple. The Revenue records also stands in the name of the temple and the said lands are leased out by the temple administration long back to some persons for cultivation. The persons who cultivated also paid meager rent to the temple administration. However, the said lands were not leased out by way of public auction as contemplated in the TN HR&CE Act 1959 and rules framed there under. It is the bounden duty of the person in management to lease out the lands belonging to a religious institution periodically as per Rule 2 of the ( The Religious Institution, Lease of Immovable Property Rules).