S RAJU Vs. ARULMIGU KAPALEESWARAR TEMPLE MYLAPORE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER: Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records of the second respondent namely the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, to quash his order dated 24.10.2000 and direct the Commissioner to approve the resolution of the Trustees to compromise the litigation and continue the petitioner as a tenant.

(2.) AS against the petitioner, the temple, represented by the Executive Officer, has filed a suit O.S.No.6185 of 1984 for a direction to the petitioner to handover the possession of the property of the temple after removing the superstructure. In the complaint, it is stated that in or about April, 1976, the plaintiff has put up a wire mesh fencing enclosing the Nandavanam. Sometime later, the defendants broke open the wire fencing forcibly and trespassed into the Nandavanam, destroyed the flower plants, stole the coconuts from the coconut trees and then have put a thatched shed unauthorisedly. It is further stated that they have made a complaint to the police, but no action has been taken and hence that above suit. According to the temple, the petitioner is a trespasser and is liable to be evicted. The suit property consisted of a vacant land measuring 10" x 8" in R.S.No.3137, Door Nos.14/1 to 17/1, Poonambala Vadhiyar Street, Mylapore. The suit was decreed on 9.1.1985 as prayed for. Thereafter, E.P.No.803 of 1997 was filed for execution of the decree. Later, the Trustees of the temple, who are not parties to this writ petition, appear to have decided to withdraw the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.15718 of 2001 for a direction to the Commissioner to forthwith grant approval of the resolution of the Board of Trustees of the temple. This Court, by order dated 18.9.2000, directed the Commissioner to pass orders. The impugned order came to be passed, wherein it is stated that the resolution of the Board of Trustees is not in the interest of the temple and thereafter, the Executive Officer was directed to take appropriate steps to cancel the resolution. The present writ petition is filed against this order.