R. Suresh Kumar, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against The order dated 05.08.2025 made in W.P.No.28957 of 2025.)

1. This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 05.08.2025 made in W.P.No.28957 of 2025.

2. There is a Temple called the Arulmigu Ekambareswara Thirukoil,, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 29, which is administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments(For brevity, hereinafter referred as “the HR & CE”. )Department. There has been an Executive Officer and hierarchy of Officials like the Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the HR & CE Department supervising such administration. The property in question belongs to the Temple. It is claimed to have been let-in by the Temple to the appellants/writ petitioners for ground rent several years back.

3. It is the claim of the appellants/writ petitioners that, since 1974, they have been enjoying the property, where, a pakka multistorey commercial complex had been constructed and out of such commercial complex, several lakhs, if not crores of rupees, is being earned by the appellants/writ petitioners by way of rent.

4. However, it seems that, this appellants/writ petitioners have not paid any rent to the Temple Authorities and such rent was mounting even ten years back, where, in the letter of the first appellant dated 23.12.2016, the following has been admitted:-



5. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the arrears, as of now, would amount to Rs.3,65,41,370/-. Despite this huge arrears of ground rent payable to the Temple, which has not been paid by the appellants/writ petitioners, since the appellants/writ petitioners are enjoying the property continuously, the Assistant Commissioner concerned, under Section 78(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959(In short, “the Act of 1959), since had a reason to believe that the continuous physical possession of the property in question by the appellants/writ petitioners could only be construed as an encroachment, a report seems to have been given by him to the Joint Commissioner concerned, who, under Section 78(3) of the Act of 1959, issued the show-cause notice on 01.03.2018. The said show-cause notice was challenged by the first appellant in the first round of litigation in W.P.No.23199 of 2018.

6. The said writ petition was dismissed by the order of the Writ Court dated 10.09.2024. Before the Writ Court, it was the ground urged on behalf of the first appellant that, the Joint Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of the HR & CE Department do not have any jurisdiction to issue such show-cause notice under Section 78(2) of the Act of 1959, as the land in question does not belong to the Temple.

7. Though such ground was raised, those grounds having been considered, were rejected and the writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court by its order dated 10.09.2024. As against the said order, no intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellants/writ petitioners, thereby, the said order of the Writ Court made in W.P.No.23199 of 2018 dated 10.09.2024 became final.

8. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the HR & CE Department once again proceeded to issue notice dated 24.10.2024 to enquire under the same provision, that is Section 78(2) of the Act of 1959, seeking the enquiry to be conducted on 06.11.2024. This notice for enquiry has been impugned in the present writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners in W.P.No.28957 of 2025.

9. The second round of litigation, that is W.P.No.28957 of 2025, was dismissed by the Writ Court by the order dated 05.08.2025, which is impugned herein.

10.1. Mainly on the ground of constructive res judicata, since the writ petition was dismissed, it is the contention of Mr.V.Venkatasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners that, the Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata would not apply to Writ Proceedings and also, since this is a legal question, as to the jurisdiction of the HR & CE Department to issue even a show-cause notice or a notice for enquiry under Section 78(2) of the Act of 1959, that question could be raised at any point of time, even in the second round of litigation.

               10.2. Therefore, on the ground of invoking constructive res judicata, an opportunity cannot be denied to the litigant, to raise such legal question even in the second round of litigation, is the main plank of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners.

               10.3. It is his further argument that, apart from the said legal ground, on merits also, the land in question does not belong to the Temple and under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, the land has been vested with the Government and the Government has entrusted the land to the Temple as well as to the individuals for ground patta, therefore, if at all any eviction proceeding is to be initiated on the alleged reason of encroachment without paying rent, such proceeding could be initiated only by the Government and not by the Officials of the HR & CE Department by invoking Section 78 of the Act of 1959. These are the two grounds mainly urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners.

11.1. We have heard Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, the pucca multistorey commercial complex has been constructed long back in the property by the appellants/writ petitioners, where, there has been full of commercial establishments and it is being fully exploited commercially, thereby, several lakhs of rupees is being collected by the appellants/writ petitioners every month. Despite such huge revenue is enjoyed by the appellants/writ petitioners, the appellants/writ petitioners have not come forward to make the ground rent arrears payable to the Temple Authorities and he would further submit that, till recently, if we calculate the rental arrears, it will come to Rs.3,64,41,370/-. When such huge arrears of ground rent is still there, which has not been paid for more than ten years, as the ground rent arrears has been mounting over the years, nothing has been paid by the appellants/writ petitioners.

               11.2. For all practical purposes, the occupation of the appellants/writ petitioners could only be construed as an encroachment and as the Assistant Commissioner is having a reason to believe that such an encroachment is made in the Temple property, he gave a report to the Joint Commissioner, who in turn, could issue show-cause notice to such encroachment. That was the first show-cause notice issued in the year 2018, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants/writ petitioners. Thereafter, the enquiry notice was issued in the year 2024, which is the present impugned order before the Writ Court and therefore, the appellants/writ petitioners do not have any good case to present either before the Writ Court or before this Division Bench and hence, the present writ appeal is liable to be dismissed, he contended.

12. We have given our anxious consideration to the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

13. Insofar as the contention raised by the appellants/writ petitioners' counsel that, constructive res judicata applied by the learned Judge in dismissing the writ petition is unjustifiable or bad in law is concerned, we are not proposed to stretch upon this proposition for the reason being that, even otherwise, on merits, if the writ petition, that is the second writ petition, is entertained, whether the appellants/writ petitioners would be entitled to succeed in the writ petition on merits is the question to be delved into.

14. In the first round of litigation, while dismissing the writ petition by the Writ Court in W.P.No.23199 of 2018 dated 10.09.2024, the learned Judge has given the reason for dismissing the writ petition in paragraph 8, which reads thus:-

               “8. On a bare perusal of the order passed by the Settlement Tahsildar makes it clear that the schedule lands are religious Inam granted for the third respondent Temple and also that the Temple owns both varams in the schedule lands. Further the Temple was granted with a Ryotwari Patta. It is also seen that the list of the occupants was also annexed along with the said order wherein the petitioner claims that she purchased the said property from her vendor who are in S.Nos.57 and 58 of the said order namely Ellappan and John Basha respectively, however the petitioner did not produce any document or proof to show that she purchased the said property from her vendors. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, though the petitioner claims that she purchased the subject property from her vendor, however, she has not produced any proof to substantiate her claim. In the absence of any proof or title to show that that she is the owner of the aforesaid property, it cannot be said that she is not an encroacher. Hence, the impugned order passed by the first respondent does not warrant any interference of this Court.”

               The findings given by the Writ Court has become final, as admittedly, no appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 10.09.2024 made in W.P.No.23199 of 2018.

15. Be that as it may, when the notice for enquiry was issued presently on 24.10.2024, the same has been questioned with the similar grounds, that is, want of jurisdiction, such an enquiry notice ought not to have been issued by the HR & CE Department. In the context of want of jurisdiction, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitions that, the land in question does not belong to the Temple and it belongs to the Government, therefore, if at all the appellants/writ petitioners are to be treated as encroachers, it must be dealt with only by the Government under the relevant Legislation and not by the HR & CE Department by invoking Section 78 of the HR & CE Act.

16. The very submission made in this regard by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners does not have any basis for the simple reason that, in their own letter of the first appellant written on 23.12.2016, which we have extracted hereinabove, it has been admitted that the land in question belongs to the third respondent Temple. It is further admitted that, there has been rental arrears to the extent of Rs.28,33,816/- as on 23.12.2016, out of which, only Rs.3 lakhs had been paid and the remaining amount would be paid in April, 2017. Therefore, it is a clear case or admitted case on the part of the appellants/writ petitioners that, the land in question belongs to the Temple, where, W.A.No.3574 of 2025 the appellants/writ petitioners, being tenants, have to pay the arrears and the rental arrears were mounting to the extent of Rs.28 lakhs and odd in the year 2016. Even though in between some payments have been made to the extent of Rs.42 lakhs, even after deducting the said amount, the arrears would be Rs.3 crores and odd, as stated supra.

17. Therefore, the very basis of the case projected by the appellants/writ petitioners as if that the land does not belong to the Temple has no legs to stand, accordingly, the question of jurisdiction does not arise as the said ground, even if it is raised, would be rejected outrightly by any prudent authority, muchless, the Joint Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, within the meaning of conducting an enquiry under Section 78(2) of the Act of 1959.

18. Once the jurisdiction point since goes against the appellants/writ petitioners, no other plausible or acceptable ground is available with the appellants/writ petitioners, hence, the ground of whether the second writ petition, which is impugned herein, had to be dismissed on the ground of constructive res judicata or not need not be gone into, as we proposed earlier.

19. If we look at the language used in both the notices, that is the notice issued in the year 2018 as well as the notice issued on 24.10.2024, both the notices were issued under Section 78(2) of the Act of 1959 and the first one is a show-cause notice as contemplated under Section 78 of the Act of 1959 and once the show-cause notice has become finality, as the writ petition filed against it has got dismissed in the year 2018 itself, the only procedure that has to be gone into is by conducting an enquiry, therefore, the present notice is only an enquiry notice, where, an enquiry date also has been fixed as 06.11.2024. Therefore, the writ petitioners, even on merits, does not have a case to challenge the said notice dated 24.10.2024.

20. Once the show-cause notice issued in this regard by the HR & CE Department since has been sustained by the dismissal of the first round of litigation and the same has become final, as admittedly, no appeal has been filed against it, the consequent proceedings issued now to conduct enquiry cannot be found fault with. Moreover, if at all any sustainable ground is available with the appellants/writ petitioners, the same could also be agitated before the Joint Commissioner, who is going to conduct the enquiry under Section 78(2) of the Act of 1959.

21. If ultimately any adverse orders are passed, it is further open to the appellants/writ petitioners to agitate the same in the manner known to law, but, without exhausting such proceedings, as contemplated under the Act of 1959, since the appellants/writ petitioners have once again approached this Court by filing the said writ petition unsuccessfully and again filed the present intra-Court appeal, this action on the part of the appellants/writ petitioners could only be construed as a frivolous attempt making one after another out of nothing.

22. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to hold that the present appeal does not have even a semblance of any merit, hence, it is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected.

23. Before dismissing this writ appeal and parting with the case, we do want to remind the HR & CE Department that, despite the arrears which amounts to Rs.28 lakhs and odd in the year 2016 and out of which, only paltry sum has been paid, that is Rs.3 lakhs, in the year 2016 and thereafter, admittedly, only Rs.42 lakhs and odd has been paid and the arrears, as of now, is more than Rs.3 crores and 65 lakhs, why suitable remedial action to recover such huge arreas from the appellants/writ petitioners has not been immediately taken by the HR & CE Department is not known.

24. No plausible reason has been given on the side of the HR & CE Department for their long slumber and acute inaction on their part in protecting the Temple land and collecting the money payable by the users of the Temple land, which is the money belonging to the deity of the Temple. Such kind of lazy attitude on the part of the HR & CE Department cannot be approved, except, could only be deprecated.

25. In that view of the matter, while dismissing the writ appeal, there shall be a direction to the respondent HR & CE Department to take immediate action to recover the entire rental arrears from the appellants/writ petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and for such action of collecting arrears, any coercive steps in the manner known to law could be invoked by them. Despite this oder, if no effective steps are taken by the HR & CE Department, the Officials concerned of the HR & CE Department shall be held responsible.

26. To report compliance by filing the compliance report, post this appeal in the third week of March, 2026.

27. Resultantly, this writ appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.