Unauthorized Occupants of Temple Property Cannot Claim Lease Rights or Bypass Statutory Eviction Procedures

The subject property is 602 sq.ft. of land in Kumbakonam belonging to the Arulmighu Illuppaiyadi Pillayar Temple.

A former tenant, Varadarajulu Naidu, unsuccessfully attempted to claim title over the property; the High Court confirmed the Temple's ownership in S.A.No.385 of 1989.

The appellant, Mohammed Basheer, allegedly purchased the property from Naidu and took possession.

Consequently, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department initiated eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the TNHR&CE Act.

An eviction order was passed on 29.03.2019, which was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner in a revision petition on 09.03.2022.

The appellant challenged these orders via a writ petition, which the learned single Judge dismissed on 07.09.2022, prompting this writ appeal.

Whether a person who occupies temple property through an illegal sale deed from a former tenant can claim the status of a legal lessee or resist eviction proceedings.

Whether the High Court, in the exercise of judicial review, should direct the HR&CE Department to grant a lease to an unauthorized occupant based on the payment of rent/arrears.

The Court applied Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which governs the eviction of "encroachers" (defined to include those whose occupation is without the permission of the competent authority).

It also invoked Section 34-A regarding the fixation of fair rent.

The Court relied on the principle of *res judicata* regarding the title of the property, previously settled in S.A.No.385 of 1989.

Furthermore, it emphasized that the power to grant a lease is a statutory function that must strictly comply with the Act and Rules, and cannot be bypassed through judicial equity.

The Court reasoned that the appellant had no legal standing because the vendor (the original tenant) had no title to convey, rendering the sale deed void.

Since the Temple’s title was already absolute per the 1989 High Court judgment, the appellant was factually an "encroacher" under Section 78.

The Court rejected the appellant's argument for a fresh lease based on a single Judge's observation or the payment of arrears, stating that payment of rent by an encroacher does not confer a legal right to tenancy.

The Court clarified that granting leases is a statutory power of the HR&CE authorities, and the High Court cannot interfere with this mandate or direct the grant of a lease where the prescribed legal procedure (such as competitive bidding or fair rent fixation) has not been followed.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the learned single Judge.

The authorities were granted liberty to resume the property and secure vacant possession within the directed timeline.

The interim stay was vacated, and no costs were awarded.