KANNAPPA MUDALIAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the fourth respondent, Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department, Kudiyatham dated Nil.11.1998 passed under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31/1978) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 31 of 1978) in relation to the lands of the petitioner situate in Survey No.154 to an extent of 1.10.0 hectares and Survey No.155 to an extent of 0.20.0 hectares.

(2.) THE petitioner claimed to be the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Alayam, Keel Alathur Village, Katpadi Taluk and according to him, his ancestors have constructed the said temple as a private temple. THE lands stated above are his ancestral properties have been in enjoyment of their family members from 1914 having patta No.51. After the death of original owner Krishnappa Mudaliar, the petitioner is stated to be in possession and enjoyment paying kists and other revenues to the Government and according to him, he has even perfected title by adverse possession. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent-Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department has not taken over the temple and therefore, the fifth respondent has no right over the properties. THE fourth respondent has instituted the acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 and issued a notice under Section 4(1) in Form No.III, which is impugned in these proceedings ordering to acquire the said property for putting up the construction of house-sites to the Adi-Dravidar, Arunthathiar, Irulas of Kizhalathur village in the name of the fifth respondent Department. According to the petitioner, no notice has been served to him being the actual owner. THE petitioner has raised his objections on 18.11.1998 and sent notice through his counsel. THE acquisition proceedings are challenged on the ground that the petitioner being the hereditary trustee of the temple to which the lands belongs, should have been given notice, that the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment has never taken over the property, that the petitioner being the present Dharmakartha, he should have been given notice under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978 before passing the impugned order under Section 4(1) of the Act 31 of 1978.

(3.) MR. T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the fifth respondent-Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has also submitted that the property in question never belonged to the petitioner at any point of time. Even though the petitioner claims to be a hereditary trustee of the temple namely, Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Temple, he was never declared by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department as hereditary trustee. According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, as per the records, the property belonged to the temple and the temple is under the control of the Department.