logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6169 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP. No. 21311 of 2026 & WMP. No. 23056 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Parties : V. Rajendran Versus The secretary to Government Commercial Taxes, Registration & Religious Endowments, (HR & CE) Department, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M/S. K. Balasubramani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Yeshwanth Raj, Govt.Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 11-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 26.05.2026 in proceedings Na.Ka. No.2506-5/2025/E2 on the file of the 4th respondent, quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the 4th Respondent dated 26.05.2026, whereby the said authority directed the Petitioner to vacate the subject premises without considering the pendency of a statutory Revision Application before the 1st Respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the President of the Nagarathar Sangam and the Trustee of the Parivatta Kattalai, whose primary object is to perform religious rituals and poojas at the Arulmigu Sri Thiagarajaswami Temple. The said Kattalai owns land in T.S. No. 2746 of Tiruvarur Town, measuring an extent of 9,870 sq. ft. Additionally, an adjacent land measuring an extent of 555.5 sq. m. in T.S. No. 2746/A belongs to the Nagarathar Sangam. The present dispute is strictly confined to the property in T.S. No. 2746.

3. The 2nd Respondent, vide G.O. Ms. No. 2347 dated 13.07.1966, had notified the aforementioned religious institution under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act, 1959. Challenging the said Government Order, the then Trustees filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 12 of 1968. Though the said suit was dismissed, an appeal was preferred in A.S. No. 176 of 1984, which was subsequently allowed, thereby declaring that the properties of the Kattalai are independent and do not fall under the administrative control of the 5th Respondent.

4. While matters stood thus, the 5th Respondent unexpectedly issued a notice dated 24.10.2020, demanding a sum of Rs.18,25,584/- as arrears of rent for T.S. No. 2746, followed by a legal notice demanding vacant possession of the premises. Thereafter, Respondents 3 and 4 initiated eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act and passed an order of eviction on 05.01.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd Respondent, which came to be confirmed.

5. Challenging the concurrent findings, the Petitioner preferred a Revision Application on 01.06.2026 before the 1st Respondent, which is currently pending consideration. In the interregnum, the 4th Respondent issued the impugned notice dated 26.05.2026, directing the Petitioner to vacate the subject premises on or before 09.06.2026. The learned counsel contends that the impugned order has been passed high-handedly, without considering the pendency of the statutory Revision Application before the 1st Respondent.

6. Though several grounds have been raised in the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner confines his argument to a limited request, praying that this Court may pass suitable orders to protect the interests of the Petitioner until the disposal of the statutory revision application by the 1st Respondent.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the HR & CE Department submits that even the Revision Application filed before the 1st Respondent is barred by limitation and has not been preferred within the prescribed statutory period.

8. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and without going into the merits of the matter, this Court directs the 1st Respondent to consider and dispose of the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner dated 01.06.2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. Till such time the Revision Application is finally disposed of by the 1st Respondent, both parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today with regard to the possession of the subject property.

11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal