AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration)
Department, Madras-34 dated 15-11-1995, rejecting his petition dated 28-02-93, for sale of the land and ordering for his eviction from the land
in question at once, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to quash the same on various grounds.
The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he is the lessee in respect of Ac.1.97 Cents in Survey No. 32 and
Survey No. 28 respectively in Chinthamani area, Trichy. Sri Panchavarneswaraswami temple situated in Woraiyur is the absolute owner of the
land. The petitioner was cultivating the land and paying rent to the Devasthanam. The Trust Board of the temple has passed a Resolution to sell the
above said lands measuring A.1.97 Cents in order to mobilise funds for the development of the Institution. The petitioner also conveyed his
decision expressing his willingness to purchase the land. Accordingly, an application was taken on file by the Commissioner and numbered it as
Application No. 9 of 1986. After satisfying himself and after verifying the records, the Commissioner, H.R and C.E. Department, Madras has
directed the issue of a notice dated 2-9-86, inviting suggestions and objections, if any, for the proposed sale. A publication was effected in ''Malai
Murasu'' on 7-9-86. An enquiry was held by the first respondent on 21-10-86. After considering all the relevant records and materials available,
the Commissioner passed a final orders in the Application No. 9/1986 V3 dated 10-11-86 and granted sanction for the sale of the land in favour
of the petitioner. The order of the Commissioner has been published in the District Gazette. No appeal was filed by any one against the said order.
Thereupon the petitioner approached the second respondent to execute the sale deed. The second respondent advised him to wait for 3 months till
the expiry of the appeal time. Thereafter, the second respondent executed the sale deed for one part of the property measuring about 0.70 cents
and registered the same on 8-6-87. The petitioner made a request to the second respondent to execute the sale deed for the remaining portion of
the land on 11-6-87. Thereafter, he made several representations/communications to the first and second respondents. As per the direction of this
Court in Writ Petition No. 18198 of 1992, the petitioner filed a petition u/s 23(1) of the Act XXII of 1959 and requested the Commissioner to
issue direction to execute the sale deed on the basis of the sale order dated 10-11-86. He also received a communication that it would take a
further time of 6 months to pass orders in the said petition. While so, he received the impugned communication dated 15-11-95 wherein the first
respondent has cancelled the sale order in Application No. 9/86 V3, dated 10-11-86 on the ground that the previous Commissioner has dropped
the proceedings in Application No.9/86 V3, dated 10-11-86 on 17-11-89 itself. The Commissioner has also directed the Executive Officer to
evict him from the lands in question in the capacity of lessee, on the basis of an order passed by the Government in their letter dated 8-11-89. The
said communication was not served on him. The dropping of the proceedings in Application No. 9/86 V3, dated 17-11-89 was also not served on
him. In such a circumstance, having no other effective remedy, has filed the present writ petition.
The first respondent-Commissioner, H.R and C.E. Department has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner.
It is not disputed the request made by the petitioner in his application dated 18-4-83 requesting to sell 1.97 acres of land in his favour, the
resolution of the Board of Trustees, his application before the Commissioner, his subsequent enquiry, publication in the daily in ''Malai Murasu'',
and the approval by the Commissioner as well as the Notification published in the District Gazette. However, since the temple properties are to be
sold by public auction to get best price, the Government have called for the records and verified the same. The Government after satisfying itself
that the transaction was not beneficial to the interests of the Institution, advised cancellation of the orders already issued for sale of the lands. Since
only on the basis of the direction of the Government, the Commissioner instructed the Executive Officer to evict the lessee, the impugned order has
been passed.
In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Sukumaran, learned
Special Government Pleader for first respondent.
Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would contend that in the light of the earlier order passed by the Commissioner,
after following the detailed procedure, including calling for objections from the public and publication of the same in the District Gazette, the
Commissioner has no suo motu power to review the earlier order. In any event, according to him, the Commissioner has failed to give any notice
to the petitioner and also failed to conduct any enquiry before cancelling the previous order. He also contended that the order of the Commissioner
cancelling the previous order passed in Application No. 9/86 V3, dated 10-11-86 having not been supplied or served on him, the impugned order
is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, Mr. G. Sukumaran, learned Special
Government Pleader, would contend that against the impugned order of the Commissioner, revision lies to the Government; hence the present writ
petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
First I shall consider the objection regarding availability of alternative remedy by way of revision to the Government. It is true that as per Rule 34
(4), against the order of the Commissioner, revision lies to the Government. The impugned order was stated to have been passed on the direction
of the Government in letter dated 8-11-89. In such a circumstance, as rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I am of the
view that there is no need to file a revision as contended by the learned Special Government Pleader. Further, the said objection has not been
raised all along and the writ petition is kept pending for nearly 7 years. Coming to the other contentions, namely, power of the Commissioner to
pass the impugned order, cancelling the earlier order passed by the previous Commissioner and violation of principles of natural justice, first I shall
deal with the aspect regarding jurisdiction of the first respondent in passing the impugned order. By drawing my attention to Section 23 of the Tamil
Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959), Mr. G. Subramaniam would contend that it does not
give power of review. A reading of the said provision shows that the Commissioner has overall control and power of superintendence in the matter
of administration of all temples. Though Section 23 of the Act gives power of general superintendence and control to the Commissioner, including
power to pass any orders, since the matter relates to alienation of immovable property belonging to a religious Institution, Section 34 alone is
applicable, wherein elaborate procedures have been prescribed for sale, mortgage and lease for a term exceeding 5 years of any immovable
property belonging to the temple/trust. Without proper sanction by the Commissioner, no sale or mortgage or lease exceeding 5 years takes place
and for contravention of the same, the said transaction shall be null and void. Before such sanction is accorded, the particulars relating to the
proposed sanction shall be published in the District Gazette. After publication, a copy of the order of the Commissioner shall be communicated to
the Government and to the Trustee. The Trustee may within 3 months from the date of his receipt of copy of the order, appeal to the Court (since
amended as Government) to modify the order or set it aside. This is clear from sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 34. As per Section 4-A, the
Government may issue such directions to the Commissioner in respect of sale, mortgage and lease as mentioned above and it is incumbent on the
part of the Commissioner to give effect to all such directions. As stated earlier, sub-sections (1) to (5) to Section 34 provide elaborate procedures
to be followed in the case of alienation of immovable properties of the temple or trust. It is the grievance of the petitioner that having followed such
procedure and granted permission to sell 1.97 acres of land, the first respondent cannot be permitted to wriggle out of it. It is also contended that
though as per section 114-A, the power of review is conferred on the Government, no such similar power is conferred on the Commissioner to
review his earlier order passed u/s 34 of the Act. I have already referred to the provisions contained in sub-sections (3) and (4-A) to Section 34,
and according to which the Commissioner has to communicate his decision to the Government as well as to the trustee and it is open to the
Government to issue such directions to the Commissioner as in their opinion are necessary, in respect of any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of
any immovable property, and it is the bounden duty of the Commissioner to give effect to all such directions. In such a circumstance, I hold that if
any direction or directions are issued by the Government, it is the duty of the Commissioner to give effect to the same as per sub-section (4-A) of
Section 34 of the Act. Accordingly, since the Commissioner has passed the impugned order, based on the direction of the Government, in the light
of the statutory provisions referred to above, the order of the Commissioner cannot be faulted with.
Coming to the other contention, namely, violation of principles of natural justice, I have already referred to the earlier order of the Commissioner
granting permission to sell 1.97 acres of land belonging to the second respondent temple in favour of the petitioner, who is none-else than the
lessee. I have already held that the Commissioner has to communicate its decision to the Government and the Government is empowered to issue
such direction in the interest of the temple and the same is binding on the Commissioner. However, in the light of the earlier order granting
permission to the petitioner to sell the land, in the absence of any notice or enquiry, merely on the basis of Government letter dated 8-11-89, the
subsequent order of the first respondent Commissioner cancelling the earlier order cannot be sustained. In the affidavit filed in support of the above
writ petition and during the course of argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner was not put on notice
nor given any opportunity to put-forth his case. It is also contended that the petitioner was not aware of the communication of the Government
dated 8-11-89 as well as the order dropping the proceedings of the Commissioner in Application No. 9/86 V3 dated 17-11-89. Though the
impugned order contained certain details such as the reason for passing the same and the earlier order of the Commissioner cancelling his approval,
the communication of the Government etc., those particulars cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of counter affidavit or
otherwise. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has very much relied on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in
Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, wherein Their Lordships have held that ""when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court
on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out."" I have already referred to the fact that except mentioning the
Government letter No. and date and the cancellation of the earlier order of the Commissioner, no other details have been elicited in the impugned
order. As observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the absence of such details in the order itself, we can safely arrive at a conclusion that the
case of the respondents cannot be improved by supplementing the same in the form of a counter affidavit.
I have already referred to the assertion made by the petitioner in the affidavit as well as the statement made before me by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner that none of the orders referred to in the impugned proceedings were communicated or served on the petitioner. In this
regard, it is useful to refer the decision of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal etc. Vs. M.R. Mondal and Another, , wherein Their Lordships
have held that, (para 16)
An order passed but retained in file without being communicated to the plaintiff can have no force or authority whatsoever and the same has no
valid existence in the eye of law or claim to have come into operation and effect. No reliance can be placed on the same to even assert a claim
based on its contents?..
It is clear from the above decision that an order which is not communicated to the person aggrieved has no force in the eye of law. In the light of
the fact that none of the orders referred to in the impugned proceedings were communicated to the petitioner nor any evidence to show that the
same were acknowledged by the petitioner was produced, those orders are non-existence in the eye of law. I am satisfied that petitioner was not
only given notice or opportunity to put-forth his case, but also not served with the copies of the earlier order of the Commissioner and the
communication of the Government as referred to in the impugned proceedings. In such a circumstance, I am of the view that on the ground of
violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
In the light of what is stated above, the order of the first respondent dated 15-11-95 is quashed and the first respondent-Commissioner, H.R
and C.E. (Administration) Department, Madras-34 is directed to restore the proceedings on its file and pass fresh orders as mentioned above,
after affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth his defence. Since this Court has granted stay of dispossession of the petitioner of
the property even on 13-12-95 and the same is in force all along for nearly 7 years, the same order shall continue till a fresh decision being taken
by the first respondent as directed above. Writ Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No. 26563 of
95 is closed.