Madras HC Leaves Temple Eviction Order in Place, Citing Buyer’s Pending Civil Title Suit Over Ariyalur Plot

The petitioner claimed title to and possession of property at Ward No. 5, Rajaji Nagar, Ariyalur, purchased under a registered sale deed dated 7 October 2020; a patta had also been transferred to his name.

The Joint Commissioner had ordered his eviction under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, on the basis that the property belonged to the temple and was encroached upon.

The petitioner sought to quash that order and restore the property and related features removed during consequential action.

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for declaration but had not pursued the statutory appeal referred to by the Court under Section 21 of the Act.

Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, was applied as the provision under which proceedings to remove an alleged encroacher from temple property had been initiated.

The Court referred to Section 21 as providing a statutory appeal that the petitioner had not pursued.

It also invoked the principle that a deity is a minor and that the High Court has parens patriae jurisdiction to protect the deity’s interests.

The Court stated that disputed civil questions of fact and title are not for determination in judicial review proceedings and should be resolved in trial-type proceedings.

The Court accepted the respondents’ position that the property belonged to the temple and that the petitioner had been evicted following an enquiry under Section 78.

It considered the petitioner’s sale deed and patta insufficient to establish a right warranting writ relief, particularly because ownership was disputed and the petitioner had already sought declaratory relief in a civil suit.

In the Court’s view, the title dispute was not suitable for adjudication under Article 226; the petitioner had also not pursued the statutory appeal identified by the Court.

The Court separately observed that alleged illegal alienation of temple property may warrant criminal action against those responsible and that authorities could face disciplinary consequences for failing to perform their duties.

It did not grant the requested relief to quash the Section 78 order or restore the property, compound wall, trees, or remove the temple board.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.