G UMAPATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner claiming to be the former executive trustee of the Meenakshi Amman Udanurai Sri Venkateeswarar Temple (hereinafter referred to as the 'Temple') has sought for a direction upon the respondents to remove all encroachments upon the properties belonging to the temple and to repossess the encroached properties and effectively perform their functions as per the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the temple owns vast extent of lands at Kadapperi Village in Madurantakam Taluk and during 1999, a resurvey of lands was undertaken and as the temple authorities did not seek for grant of patta in favour of the temple, the lands were classified as 'Anatheenam" (unclaimed) lands. THE State Government and the Municipal authorities have stated that the lands are poromboke lands and proposed to set up a 'Uzhavar Sandai' in the property comprised in survey No.11/3, and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for the above mentioned relief.

(3.) THE claim of the writ petition is that the land in question, originally belonged to the temple and during resurvey, the same was wrongly classified as 'Anatheenam' lands and that the authorities should be directed to reclaim the lands or in the alternative to secure the market value of the land to be deposited to the credit of the temple. When a question was posed by this Bench to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how a writ petition is maintainable on the subject issue, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of A.A.Gopalakrishnan, referred supra, and submitted that the properties of temples, deities, etc., have to be protected and it is also the duty of Court to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. THE learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Gokul Murugesan, referred supra, and submitted that the writ petition is maintainable.