M.GUNASEELAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms.J.Maria Roseline, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 & 6, Mr.K.Dinesh, learned counsel representing Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, Standing Counsel for Tiruchirappalli Corporation on behalf of respondents 2 & 3, Mr.K.Vadivelu, learned counsel on behalf of fourth respondent and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 5 and 7 are before this Court. 2 Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings of this Court dated 07.11.2019 which reads as follows:

(2.) In the course of hearing, it came to light that it is necessary to implead three other parties for disposal of this Writ Petition. They are:

(3.) A very piquant situation has arisen in the instant matter. It is not only piquant, but peculiar leading to a predicament of sorts. On the one hand, it is a piece of land belonging to a Temple where writ petitioner is admittedly a cultivating tenant. On the other hand, second respondent has put up a water tank on that piece of land which this Court is informed is for drinking water purposes which is also in larger public interest. Section 34 of said Act is couched in a language wherein any alienation of Temple land dehors Section 34 of said Act is null and void. Therefore, Section 34 of said Act and sanction thereunder is statutorily imperative for alienation of Temple land.