S. KUMAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER

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)  Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2019.04.08 17:01:20 IST Reason: 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