NONREPORTABLE
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)
CIVIL APPEAL No.3566 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5146/2019)
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3567 OF 2019
(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)
J U D G M E N T
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
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)
CIVIL APPEAL No.3566 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5146/2019)
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3567 OF 2019
(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)
J U D G M E N T
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
