P ARUMUGHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition seeks to quash paragraphs 3 (iii) and (iv) of G. O. Ms. No. 30, dated 28. 1. 1993 of the 1 st respondent and to direct respondents 3 and 4 to release the sale deed already executed by the 3rd respondent after completing registration.

(2.) THUS short facts are as follows: Pursuant to application by the petitioner, who was tenant of the temple in question, the 2nd respondent by order dated 6. 5. 1987, accorded sanction under Sec. 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the'the Act')for the Executive Officer of the said temple (3rd respondent) to sell the temple property in question to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000. The 5th respondent who had raised objection to the said sale before the 2nd respondent, preferred both revision petition before the 1st respondent and W. P. No. 6423 of 1987 on the file of this Court, against the abovesaid order dated 6. 5. 1987. In the writ petition, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to accept the petitioner's higher offer of Rs. 3,05,000 and confirmed the same in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. But, in the Writ appeal No. 255 of 1988 filed by the 5th respondent herein, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 3. 3. 1988, set aside the abovesaid order in the writ petition. However, it also dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the 5th respondent herein (writ petitioner therein) having already availed of the alternative (revision) remedy, must prosecute the same. So, by the same order, the Division Bench directed the said revision to be heard at an early date. It also held that in event of revisional authority coming to the conclusion that the abovesaid land should be sold in public auction the upset price may be fixed at Rs. 3,05,000. Thereafter, it appears that after reminders from the petitioner herein the 1st respondent passed the abovesaid impugned order dated 28. 1. 1993, whose operative portion is as follows: '(i) In supersession of the orders issued in g. O. Rt. No. 948, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments, dated 31. 10. 1988, the revision petition filed under Sec. 114 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Act, 1959 by Thiru S. Dhandapani, is rejected: (ii) The stay granted in Govt. Lrd. No. 3746/sec 2 (1)87-1, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments, dated 28. 7. 1987 is cancelled. (iii) The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Administration Department is requested to return the entire deposit' 'amount with interest accumulated thereon to Thiru P. Arumugham. (iv) The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Administration Department is requested to place the matter relating to sale of the land measuring an extent of 4. 84 acres int. S. Nos. 2750/l, 2750/2, and 2751 in Cuddalore Town belonging to A. M. Varadaraja Perumal Temple, thirupathiripuliyur in Cuddalore Taluk in public auction by fixing the upset price as Rs. 3,05,000 as per directions of the High Court before the Temple administration Board.'

(3.) THEREFORE, in this connection the relevant observations of the Division Bench have to be seen. They are as follows: 'after giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the view taking into account the interest of the institution and also taking note of the fact that the price already offered by the 3rd respondent does not reflect the correct market value, the parties must be directed to agitate the matter before the statutory appellate authority in the statutory appeal preferred by the appellant herein. In that way, we feel that the order of the learned Judge accepting the offer and confirming the sale in favour of the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained as, in our view, the sale, in the circumstances must not be by private negotiation. Accordingly, the order of the learned Judge is set aside, and we dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner having already availed of the alternative remedy, must prosecute the same. " The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the abovesaid observations could only be taken as passing remarks made by the division Bench since the Bench only dismissed the writ petition on the sole ground that the alternative remedy of revision had been already availed of by the writ petitioner therein (5th respondent herein ). So according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the statutory revision filed by the writ petitioner therein must be heard independent of the abovesaid passing remarks made by the division Bench. Learned counsel also points out that that is why even though one of the abovesaid passing remarks is that the sale must not be by private negotiation, the Division Bench finally concludes that, "in the event of the appellate authority coming to the conclusion that the landed property in question must be sold in public auction. " In other words, according to him, the revisional authority must give independent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the landed property in question should be sold in public auction, irrespective of what has been observed by the Division Bench. But, no such reason has been given at all in the impugned order.