SAHAJA NALVAZHVU SANGAM AND ORS. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5.

(2.) By consent of both parties, these writ appeals are taken up for final disposal.

(3.) These appeals are filed by the writ petitioners against the order dated 22.02.2019 in W.P.(MD)Nos.1614 and 1615 of 2019, by which, the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 28.07.2018 and consequential proceedings of the third respondent dated 23.08.2018 were dismissed. The appellants before us had filed these writ petitions challenging the impugned proceedings therein on the ground that the action of the Assistant Commissioner of HR and CE Department, empowering the respondents 4 and 5 to take action for recovery of possession of the properties is without jurisdiction. Further, it was contended that the Assistant Commissioner of HR and CE Department, Karur, erred in passing the proceedings dated 23.08.2018 for recovery of the properties claimed by the appellants by relying upon the communication from the HR and CE Department and from the first respondent dated 28.07.2018 and that there is a clear misreading of the said communication as the Commissioner of HR and CE Department had only asked the Additional Commissioner of HR and CE Department, Trichy, to enquire regarding the status of the property and file a report. In other words, the contention of the appellants before the Writ Court was that the third respondent exceeded his jurisdiction, assumed jurisdiction and acted contrary to the directions of the head of the Commissioner of HR and CE Department. It appears that the writ petitions were dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, the stand taken by the respondents were not placed in the form of any counter affidavit. In fact, some of the observations made by the learned Writ Court in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, in our prima facie opinion would enure in favour of the appellants. We say so, because the writ court has made an observation that the communication of the third respondent, dated 23.08.2018 (impugned in the writ petition) may not take away the appellants' right. The other observations which also may enure in favour of the appellants is that the Civil Court alone is competent to decide the question of title. Though such observations were made by the writ court, ultimately, the writ petitions have been dismissed.