CORPORATION OF MADRAS Vs. J PERIYANAYAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONCEDEDLY, the impugned land of an extent of three grounds and 1032 sq. ft. located in S. No. 194/1, Royapettah, Chennai, belongs to Arulmighu Periyapalayathammal Temple, the third respondent herein. However, without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, by proceedings dated 11. 1. 1990, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, had given no objection to the Collector, Chennai, to take possession of the impugned land and also certified, as per G. O. (Misc.) No. 1630, Revenue, dated 26. 9. 1984, that the impugned land is of no use to the temple, on condition that compensation to the temple shall be paid through the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, by the Collector.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, the executive officer of the third respondent/temple, by proceedings dated 13. 1. 1990, handed over the possession of the impugned land to the Corporation of Chennai, for construction of a community hall. When the Corporation started constructing the community hall in the impugned land, a devotee moved this Court in W. P. No. 4158 of 1994 for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Corporation of Chennai, the second respondent herein, from proceeding with the construction of the community centre in the land comprised in S. No. 194/1 in Srinivasan Perumal Koil I Street, Royapettah, Madras-15, belonging to Arulmighu Periyapalayathamman Temple, Royapettah, without complying with the letter of the executive officer of the temple, the third respondent herein, dated 13. 1. 90 bearing No. Na. Ka. No. 9/1395 and to direct the appellant/corporation to deposit the sum of Rs. 13,75,000/- with the second and third respondents herein, in terms of the value fixed by the Collector of Madras dated 30-4-92 bearing No. Mu. Mu. 71098/92 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

(3.) THE learned single Judge, while appreciating the undisputed fact that the impugned land, which admittedly belonged to Arulmighu Periyapalayathamman Temple was taken over by the Corporation of Chennai, through the Collector, based on the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 11. 1. 90 referred to above without following due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, directed the Corporation to pay compensation as per the market value that prevailed in the year 1994. Aggrieved by the said direction, the Corporation of Chennai has preferred the above appeal.