R KULANTAIVEL Vs. COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The show cause notice issued in proceedings dated 11.03.2013 under Section 78 (2) of the HR & CE Actare under challenge in all these writ petitions

(2.) The writ petitioners are the cultivating tenants in respect of the property belongs to the 3rd respondent Arulmigu Mariamman and Kathirayaswamy Temple to an extent of 6.64 Acres of Punja land in S.No.78 an 3.71 Acres of Punja land in S.No.113 of Arakhasanahalli Village.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that the land in question belongs to the 3rd respondent Temple. The petitioners state that the Lease was granted in favour of their father by the 3rd respondent Temple long back and they are continuing as a cultivating tenant and paying the Annual lease to the hereditary Trustee of the 3rd respondent / Temple. The father of the writ petitioners filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.867 of 1974, on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri, for a declaration of his right to cultivate the leased property and for a permanent injunction. The suit was decreed exparte on 10.10.1974. Thereafter, one Pettammal, Hereditary Trustee of the 3rd respondent Temple and 4 others again attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the said property from the father of the writ petitioners. Thus, the father of the writ petitioners again filed a suit in O.S.No.588 of 1999, on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri, for permanent injunction. The said suit was contested by the defendants and the suit was decreed in favour of the writ petitioners and the judgment and decree became final. Accordingly, the father of the writ petitioners had been paying the rent to the hereditary trustee of the 3rd respondent Temple and cultivating the property. Third time also, there was an interference in respect of the property and again, the father of the writ petitioners filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.10 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif, Pennagaram, for permanent injunction. The said suit was also decreed on 30.01.2012 and the counter claim filed by the defendants was dismissed. The father of the writ petitioners died on 15.01.2012 and after his death, the writ petitioners, who are brothers and sisters, are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. It is contended by the writ petitioners that they are cultivating the said land and paying the rent to the 3rd respondent Temple.