| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 4840
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : W.P. (MD) No. 18453 of 2026 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 13662 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN |
| Parties : S. Iyem Perumal Versus The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: J. Anandkumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, P. Sudarkodi Natchiyar, Government Standing Counsel, R4, VR. Shanmuganathan, Standing Counsel. |
| Date of Judgment : 02-07-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
|
| Summary :- |
| Mistral API responded but no summary was generated. |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding dated 25.05.2026 rejecting the objections of the petitioner and fixing the rent for the lands in S.No. 690/18, Mela Karuvelankulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Thirunelveli District and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to quantify the enhancement of rent as per the Government orders ie. rate of enhancement for vacant lands for commercial purpose in vogue for the period from 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2025 and fix the rent for the said lands for the future with effect from 01.07.2026 in accordance with law and also effect transfer of tenancy as requested by the petitioner to his son-in-law.)
1. This is the sixth round of litigation before this Court challenging the order fixing the fair rent for 2,874 sq. ft. of land in favour of the fourth respondent Temple and payable by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has previously approached this Court by filing the following writ petitions, the details of which are set out below:
| Sl. No. | Writ Petition No. | Order Date | | 1 | W.P.(MD)No.2870 of 2022 | 14.02.2022 | | 2 | W.P.(MD)No.24903 of 2024 | 22.10.2024 | | 3 | W.P.(MD)No.249 of 2025 | 07.01.2025 | | 4 | W.P.(MD)No.14703 of 2025 | 11.06.2025 | | 5 | W.P.(MD)No.28610 of 2025 | 15.10.2025 |
3. The impugned order has been passed pursuant to the order dated 15.10.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.28610 of 2025. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the market value of the property leased to Tamilnad Mercantile Bank has been adopted for determining the fair rent payable by the petitioner in respect of the leasehold property. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted below:
4. As a matter of fact, Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, prescribes the method for fixation of lease rent. The scope and manner of determination of lease rent under the said provision were also considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Arulmigu Angala Parameswari and Kasivishwanathaswami Temple Adimanaiveal House Owners Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others [2009 (6) CTC 512]. In paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows:
''15. The grievance regarding lack of opportunity must be accepted. We agree with the view expressed in Chemplast Sanmar case. But, this defect is cured by the proceedings dated 2.2.2009. Originally by proceedings in Na.Ka.NO. 40651/ 2008/ M3 dated 18.7.2008, the Government laid down guidelines for determination of lease rent and also directed that the Executive Officer should inform the lessee, the lease rent as determined as per Section 34A(2) of the Act. The Government also noted the fact that though 34 A of the Act had come into force on 10.11.2003, certain guidelines had not been followed by the committee, while determining the lease rent and the defects are as follows:
16. The Government also noted that if guidelines are not followed, then the lease rent fixed by the committee is quashed either in appellate proceedings or by proceedings before the High Court wherein deficiency are pointed out. It was also noted that this only leads to the delay and loss to the lease rent for the temple and therefore, three strict guidelines were issued and it was also indicated that if they were not followed, stringent action would be initiated. Following this, further proceedings dated 2.2.2009 as per which, additional and clarificatory guidelines were issued and therefore, it is found that opportunity of raising objections is given to the lessee. The proceedings dated 2.2.2009 reads as follows:
5. As a matter of fact, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 116(2)(xiii) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the Government of Tamil Nadu has framed the Fixation of Lease Rent to the Immovable Property of the Religious Institutions Rules, 2026. The said Rules were notified in G.O.Ms.No.29, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE4-2) Department, dated 14.01.2026. Rule 2(1)(i) thereof defines the expression "market value" as follows:
''2(1)(i). ''market value'' shall be the guideline value as fixed by the Registration Department from time to time.''
6. Rule 5 of the Fixation of Lease Rent to the Immovable Property of the Religious Institutions Rules, 2026 prescribes the methodology for fixation of lease rent. The said Rule reads as follows:
5.Fixation of lease rent.- (1) The Committee shall fix the lease rent at the rate mentioned in the Table given below.-
7. Prima facie, the market value ought to have been determined in terms of Serial No.2 of the above table. The adoption of the value of the property leased to Tamilnad Mercantile Bank for determining the market value is, prima facie, erroneous, since the market value is required to be determined on the basis of the guideline value fixed by the Registration Department from time to time. According to the Executive Officer of the fourth respondent Temple, the prevailing guideline value of the subject property is Rs.498 per square feet.
8. Considering that the determination has been made in contravention of the aforesaid Rules and without reference to the prevailing guideline value, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained, notwithstanding the fact that it has been passed by the Committee constituted under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the said Committee for fresh determination of the market value after ascertaining the correct guideline value fixed by the Registration Department. The Committee shall complete the said exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Upon such redetermination, if any deficiency in the lease rent is found to be payable by the petitioner, the same shall be recovered from the petitioner. Conversely, if the petitioner has paid any excess amount, such excess shall be adjusted towards the future lease rent payable by the petitioner.
10. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
|
| |
