S. Kumar vs The Commissioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3461­3505 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.3007­3051 of 2019)

S. Kumar ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The Commissioner & Ors. ….Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3506­3515 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2718­2727/2019) CIVIL APPEAL No.3516 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2984/2019) CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3517­3538 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3216­3237/2019) CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3539­3544 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.3357­3362/2019) CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3545­3564 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.3664­3683/2019) CIVIL APPEAL No.3565 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5144/2019) CIVIL APPEAL No.3570 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6067/2019) Signature Not Verified CIVIL APPEAL No.3566 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5146/2019) Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.04.08 17:01:20 IST

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3567 OF 2019 Reason:

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6065/2019) 1 AND CIVIL APPEAL No.3569 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9167/2019) (D.No.8470/2019)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final

judgment and order dated 01.11.2019 in WAMD

No.1166­1209,1269,690­692, 686­689, 696­698,

1068, 1030­1051, 1334­1336, 1332­1333, 1340,

1119­1126, 1128­1135, 1160, 1164, 1165, 1426,

1166, 1212, 1112 & 1421 of 2018 passed by the

High Court of judicature at Madras at Madurai

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court

dismissed the said writ appeals filed by the

appellants herein.

2

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of these appeals, which involve a short

point.

4. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners

and the respondents herein are the respondents of

the writ petitions, out of which these appeals arise.

5. The appellants individually claim to be

carrying on their small business of selling items by

setting up their shops in the premises of several

temples situated in various places in the districts of

the State of Tamil Nadu.

6. These appellants individually claim that they

have been doing their business either as licensee

or/and with the permission of the Temple

Authorities. In substance, the claim of the

appellants is that they have been in lawful

possession of the land for doing their business and,

therefore, the respondents­the State Authorities and

3 the Temple Management cannot dispossess any of

them from their individual shops without following

the due process of law.

7. Since the appellants were threatened by the

respondents of their dispossession from their shops

by issuance of notices dated 14/16.02.2018, they

felt aggrieved and filed the writ petitions in the High

Court, out of which these appeals arise, against the

respondents claiming inter alia the relief of issuance

of writ of certiorari for quashing the notice and also

for issuance of prohibitory writ restraining the

respondents from taking any action of dispossessing

them from their respective shops.

8. The respondents contested the writ petitions.

By a common order dated 04.06.2018, the Single

Judge dismissed the writ petitions giving rise to

filing of the writ appeals by the writ petitioners

before the Division Bench of the High Court of

4 Madras. By impugned order, the Division Bench

dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the

Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of the

present appeals by way of special leave by the

unsuccessful writ petitioners in this Court.

9. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this bunch of appeals, is whether

the High Court (Single Judge ­ Writ Court and the

Division Bench) was justified in dismissing the

appellants’ writ petitions and intra court appeals.

10. Heard Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior

counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.M. Nataraj,

learned ASG and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned

senior counsel for the respondents.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow these appeals and set aside the

impugned order.

5

12. In our considered opinion, the issue raised in

these appeals is governed by the provisions of the

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments Act, 1959 (for short “the Act, 1959).

Chapter VII of the Act, 1959 deals with the cases of

encroachment on the land belonging to religious

institutions. This chapter consists of Sections 77 to

85.

13. Section 77 of the Act, 1959 deals with transfer

of lands appurtenant to or adjoining religious

institutions prohibited except in special cases.

Section 78 deals with encroachment by persons on

land or building belonging to charitable or religious

institution or endowment and the eviction of

encroachers. Section 79 deals with mode of eviction

on failure of removal of the encroachment as

directed by the Joint Commissioner. Section 79­A

deals with encroachment by groups of persons on

6 land belonging to charitable religious institutions

and their eviction. Section 79­B deals with penalty

for offences in connection with encroachment.

Section 79­C deals with recovery of moneys due to

religious institution, as arrears of land revenue.

Section 80 deals with eviction of lessees, licensees

or mortgagees with possession in certain cases.

Section 81 provides for an appeal against Joint

Commissioner or the orders of Deputy

Commissioner passed under Section 80. Section 82

provides for payment of Compensation. Section 83

deals with constitution of Tribunal. Section 84 deals

with suits against the award. Section 85 provides

for protection of action taken under Chapter VII of

the Act, 1959.

14. As mentioned above, the controversy, which is

the subject matter of these appeals, is governed by

the provisions of the Act, 1959. It is not in dispute

7 that the respondents did not resort to the remedies

provided to them under the Act against any of the

appellants. In other words, it is not in dispute that

the action taken by the respondents, which was

impugned by the appellants in the writ petitions

before the High Court, was not taken under the Act,

1959.

15. It is for this reason, we are inclined to allow

these appeals, set aside the impugned order and

grant liberty to the respondents to take recourse to

the remedies provided to them against the

appellants individually in relation to the controversy

raised by them in these proceedings.

16. Needless to say, we have not gone into the

merits of the claim raised by the appellants whether

individually or/and severally. The respondents will,

therefore, be at liberty to proceed in the matter in

question against the appellants individually strictly

8 in accordance with law uninfluenced by any

observations made by this Court.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are accordingly allowed. The

impugned order is set aside.

.………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...……..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi;

April 08, 2019

9