High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 07.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANANW.P.(MD)No.21581 of 2025A.S.Arunagiri Moopanar... Petitioner-vs-1.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai.2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.3.The Executive Engineer, Arulmigu Nageswarasamy Thirukovil, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.... RespondentsPrayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the lock and seal of the petitioner's shop in Door Nos.81 and 82 in T.S.Nos.227, 228, 233, Municipal 5th Nageshwaran Kovil, North Street, Kumbakonam Town, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and consequently, permit the petitioner to run his textile business in the said shop. ____________Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr.R.Pon KarthikeyanFor R1 and R2 : Mr.SS.Madhavan Additional Government PleaderFor R3: Mr.V.Chandrasekar Standing CounselORDERThe petitioner is the brother of one Marimuthu Moopanar, who appears to be the recorded as tenant of the property in question as per the records maintained by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (H.R. & C.E.) Department.2. Owing to non-payment of rent by the said tenant, the respondent Temple initiated eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the H.R. & C.E. Act") in M.P.No.32 of 2024. In the said proceedings, it has been averred that both the petitioner and his brother, Marimuthu Moopanar, were tenants and were in arrears of rent. These proceedings culminated in an order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 30.06.2025.____________Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 20253. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that, although Section 21(7) of the H.R. & C.E. Act contemplates 90 days period for initiating further proceedings, the shop in question was sealed by the respondents 2 and 3 on 18.07.2025, in violation of the statutory mandate. Further, it is submitted that both the petitioner and his brother have filed Revision Petition No.248 of 2025 on 21.07.2025, and therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondents 2 and 3 to reopen the sealed shop pending disposal of the said revision.4. It is also submitted that the petitioner claims ownership of the shop on the strength of a civil court decree obtained in O.S.No.23 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, dated 12.03.2003. Pursuant thereto, E.P. No.43 of 2004 was filed and the same was allowed on 10.06.2004, and a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 04.08.2004.5. The petitioner asserts that the title to the property has been traced from the year 1971 through the predecessors in title, culminating in the aforementioned court proceedings against one Balaji, who was the defendant in O.S.No.23 of 2003.____________Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 20256. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent Temple submits that, as per temple records, only Marimuthu Moopanar, the petitioner's brother, is the recognized tenant. Since there was persistent default in paying the rent, proceedings under Section 78 of the H.R and C.E. Act were lawfully initiated against both Marimuthu and the petitioner, who were found to be in unauthorized possession.7. It is further submitted that the ex parte decree obtained in O.S.No.23 of 2003 is non est in law and not binding on the Temple, as the Temple was not made as a party to the said proceedings. Consequently, the sale deed dated 04.08.2004, executed pursuant to E.P.No.43 of 2004, is also not binding on the temple, considering that the land in question is a temple property.8. Furthermore, it is brought to this Court's attention that both the petitioner and his brother had mortgaged the subject property, along with adjacent temple land to Lakshmi Vilas Bank (now merged with DBS Bank) to secure a loan. Upon default, proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of ____________Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 2025Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ''the SARFAESI Act] were initiated and the Executive Magistrate took possession of the property on behalf of the Bank.9. In that context, the respondent Temple also approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD)No.23812 of 2022, seeking to restrain the DBS Bank from taking possession of the property, asserting that the land belongs to the Temple. However, the said writ petition was dismissed on 16.06.2025.10. It is, therefore, submitted by the respondent that the petitioner lacks bona fides, and no equitable relief is warranted in his favour. The sealing of the shop, it is submitted, took place on 19.09.2022, at a time when the Bank was taking steps to take physical possession under the SARFAESI Act. A report to that effect was also sent to the Commissioner by the first respondent / Joint Commissioner on 29.09.2022, wherein it has been stated as follows:-____________Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 2025____________Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 2025____________Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 202511. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the order passed under Section 78 of the H.R. and C.E. Act dated 30.06.2025, the shop was once again sealed. It is stated that the shop has remained unopened since 19.09.2022, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief.12. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent Temple, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, as the petitioner's conduct appears to be lacking in bona fides.13. The petitioner has neither produced any documents to establish that a business was being actively carried on from the said shop nor he has provided any proof of tax paid on sales allegedly made from the premises.14. It is also noted that the petitioner has already approached the Commissioner under Section 21 of the H.R. and C.E. Act by filing Revision Petition No.248 of 2025. The matter is now under active consideration by the Commissioner.____________Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 202515. In the event the petitioner desires any interim relief, it is open to him to approach the Commissioner with an appropriate application, subject to payment of the arrears due in respect of the shop. It is made clear that the Commissioner shall decide the revision petition independently, uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court on the merits of the case.16. The Writ Petition stands dismissed, with the above liberty. No costs.NCC : Yes / No 07.08.2025Index : Yes / No smn2To:-1.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department, Mayiladuthurai.2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.3.The Executive Engineer, Arulmigu Nageswarasamy Thirukovil, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.____________Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.21581 of 2025C.SARAVANAN , J. smn2W .P.(MD)No.21581 of 2025 07.08.2025____________Page 10 of 10