S. MURUGANANDAM Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, H.R AND C.E (ADMN) DEPARTMENT, MADRAS AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI PANCHAVARNESWARASWAMI TEMPLE, WORAIYUR, TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Madras -34 dated 15 -11 -1995, rejecting his petition dated 28 -02 -93, for sale of the land and ordering for his eviction from the land in question at once, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to quash the same on various grounds.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he is the lessee in respect of Ac.1.97 Cents in Survey No. 32 and Survey No. 28 respectively in Chinthamani area, Trichy. Sri Panchavarneswaraswami temple situated in Woraiyur is the absolute owner of the land. The petitioner was cultivating the land and paying rent to the Devasthanam. The Trust Board of the temple has passed a Resolution to sell the above said lands measuring A.1.97 Cents in order to mobilise funds for the development of the Institution. The petitioner also conveyed his decision expressing his willingness to purchase the land. Accordingly, an application was taken on file by the Commissioner and numbered it as Application No. 9 of 1986. After satisfying himself and after verifying the records, the Commissioner, H.R and C.E. Department, Madras has directed the issue of a notice dated 2 -9 -86, inviting suggestions and objections, if any, for the proposed sale. A publication was effected in 'Malai Murasu' on 7 -9 -86. An enquiry was held by the first respondent on 21 -10 -86. After considering all the relevant records and materials available, the Commissioner passed a final orders in the Application No. 9/1986 V3 dated 10 -11 -86 and granted sanction for the sale of the land in favour of the petitioner. The order of the Commissioner has been published in the District Gazette. No appeal was filed by any one against the said order. Thereupon the petitioner approached the second respondent to execute the sale deed. The second respondent advised him to wait for 3 months till the expiry of the appeal time. Thereafter, the second respondent executed the sale deed for one part of the property measuring about 0.70 cents and registered the same on 8 -6 -87. The petitioner made a request to the second respondent to execute the sale deed for the remaining portion of the land on 11 -6 -87. Thereafter, he made several representations/communications to the first and second respondents. As per the direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18198 of 1992, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 23(1) of the Act XXII of 1959 and requested the Commissioner to issue direction to execute the sale deed on the basis of the sale order dated 10 -11 -86. He also received a communication that it would take a further time of 6 months to pass orders in the said petition. While so, he received the impugned communication dated 15 -11 -95 wherein the first respondent has cancelled the sale order in Application No. 9/86 V3, dated 10 -11 -86 on the ground that the previous Commissioner has dropped the proceedings in Application No.9/86 V3, dated 10 -11 -86 on 17 -11 -89 itself. The Commissioner has also directed the Executive Officer to evict him from the lands in question in the capacity of lessee, on the basis of an order passed by the Government in their letter dated 8 -11 -89. The said communication was not served on him. The dropping of the proceedings in Application No. 9/86 V3, dated 17 -11 -89 was also not served on him. In such a circumstance, having no other effective remedy, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IN the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Sukumaran, learned Special Government Pleader for first respondent.