VISHWA HINDU VIDYA KENDRA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been instituted laying challenge to the common order of the first respondent dated 28.03.2016 passed in R.P.No.80/2016-D2.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that it owns an extent of 14.5 Ares corresponding 36 cents in Survey No.678/41, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, whereas, the third respondent, claiming to be that of its property, approached the second respondent for recovery and possession of the said property, after removing the petitioner from the disputed property. Accordingly, the second respondent had taken up an enquiry under Sec. 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (in short, HR. & CE Act) and issued notice. According to the petitioner, the property originally belonged to the Maharaja of Travancore and it was assigned in favour of one Velayutham Thampi, who had sold it to one S.Venkatachalam Iyer. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the same from Venkatachalam Iyer and continued in its possession from the date of purchase and there is no question of any encroachment to invoke the provision of Sec. 78 of the HR. & CE Act.

(3.) It is stated that there was an earlier suit filed by the said Venkatachalam Iyer against the third respondent in O.S.No.537 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil, and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. In the said suit, the plaintiff, Venkatachalam Iyer had filed an application in I.A.No.36 of 2009 seeking for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to examine the descendant of Maharaja of Travancore by name Mrs.Jayanthi Menon and also one Saroja Thampi, wife of the said Velayutham Thampi, who were residing in Chennai. The said application was allowed and the witness Saroja Thampi was examined in full. Similarly, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.1 of 2015 before the second respondent in the enquiry proceedings contemplated under Sec. 78 of the HR. & CE Act for examining the said Saroja Thampi by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The said application was dismissed on 14.05.2015 by the second respondent and a review application in R.A.No.1 of 2015 was filed and the same was also dismissed on 17.11.2015. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the petitioner preferred revision petitions before the first respondent and both the revisions came to be dismissed by a common order dated 28.03.2016. The above writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the same.