N. Ramaswami vs The Assistant Commissioner

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—By Consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. T. Srinivasaraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner is the elected Trustee of the Therali village denominationally Vaishnava Brahmin community temple viz., Arulmighu Thiruvengada Perumal @ Srinivasa Perumal Temple. The petitioner became the Trustee in the meeting held on 22.08.2010. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings appointing fit person for the temple.

The allegation in the impugned order is to the effect that the patta granted in respect of S. No. 291/4 measuring an extent of 4.986 acres itself stand in the name of an individual. This according to the respondent department is not tenable and therefore, the fit person has been appointed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam in O.S. No. 277 of 1981, in which the respondents department were the defendants. The suit was filed by the denomination of the Vaishanava Brahamin Community now inhabiting Thirali Village and others of Thirali Village, for a declaration and injunction. The civil Court granted a decree and while deciding the issue, made an observation that under Ex. A1, certified copy of Inam Fair Register, Srinivasa Perumal is stated to be Poosari of the suit temple and it is not shown that Vaishnava Brahmins alone in the exclusive management. The said decision passed by the learned District Munsif Court has been confirmed in the appeal in A.S. No. 84 of 1985 on 04.02.1986 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no second appeal has been preferred and the judgment has become final.

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would state that the impugned order refers to revenue records, which stand from time immemorial in the name of the deity represented by its Trustee and the present patta showing the name of Trustee alone and it is not the fault of the Trustee and further, it is submitted that the change in the revenue records are not material one and it will not cloth title with the Trustee. Further, it is already shown in the previous suit as the property of the deity.

In the light of the above stand taken, this Court is of the prima facie view that if an enquiry had been conducted prior to passing the impugned order, the facts could have been set right. However, the first respondent has hurriedly passed the impugned order without even issuing notice to the petitioner/hereditary Trustee solely based upon the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 09.06.2014. Since the impugned proceedings have been issued without notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, the same is bad in law and therefore, calls for interference.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, liberty is given to the first respondent to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, if a need arise and while issuing such notice and the copy of reply/representation given by Tahsildar dated 09.06.2014 shall be enclosed. On receipt of such notice, the petitioner shall be entitled to submit his report and after conducting an enquiry into the matter, the first respondent shall pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. Before passing such order, the first respondent is entitled to call for a report from the Tahsildar of the concerned area. NO costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.