W.P.No.12480 of 2021 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. [Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.,] The Petitioner who has been fighting for retrieving the properties belonging to the Temples in Tamil Nadu and protection of the same for many years

[Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.,]
The Petitioner who has been fighting for retrieving the properties belonging to the Temples in Tamil Nadu and protection of the same for many years has come before this Court seeking Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 10 to take appropriate steps to find out whereabouts of temples lands to an extent of 0.47 lakhs acres on the basis of the 1st Respondent’s policy note of the year 1984-85 and 2019-20 and remove the encroachment and restore the same to the respective temples and consequentially issue direction to the respondents 1 to 19 to secure and safeguard the 50% of income derived from the properties relating to Doc.No.840 of 1945 dated 20.06.1945 and Doc.No.1342 of 1962 dated 14.09.1962 and restore the same in favour of 25th to 31st Respondent temples and take appropriate action in respect of illegality and encroachment happened vide Doc.No.3953 of 2011 dated 10.02.2010 and Doc.No.9277 of 2019 dated 11.09.2019 in accordance with law by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 07.05.2021.

2.It is specifically alleged by the Petitioner in the Affidavit of this Petition in Paragraph No.9 that in the policy note placed before the Assembly in the year 1985-87 in Page No.41, it has been stated that 5.25 lakhs of acres of lands belonging to the religious institutions, are available in the State. However in the policy note of the year 2018-19 and 2019-20, it is mentioned that Hindu Religious Institutions have an extent of 4.78 lakhs of acres of lands only and there is no explanation from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department regarding the balance of 0.47 lakhs of acres of land viz., 47,000 acres of land.

3.If what the Petitioner states is correct, then it is really a shocking fact. If the policy note speaks about the missing of 47,000 acres of lands, the same has to be identified and retrieved to the Hindu Religious Institutions. However, Mr.Richardson Wilson, Learned State Government Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 24, 29 and 30 would submit that a Division Bench of this Court, specially constituted for looking into the temple matters, already issued a direction with regard to 4,78,462.46 Acres of land belonging to the Hindu Religious Institutions in Suo Motu W.P.No.574 of 2015 and batch dated 07.06.2021.
4.Per contra, it is submitted by the Petitioner that the said direction is only with regard to 4.78 lakhs of acres of land which has been mentioned in the policy note of the year 2018-19 and 2019-20, whereas, the Petitioner would rely upon the policy note of the year 1985-87 (Page Number 41) to submit that Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had already been submitted before the Assembly that 5.25 lakhs of acres of land is owned by Hindu Religious Institutions in Tamil Nadu.

5.Therefore, prima facie, it is clear that 47,000 acres of land are missing from the extent mentioned in the subsequent policy notes. Therefore, the Respondents 1 to 24 shall file a counter in this regard specifically giving the details of extent of land mentioned in the policy note in the year 1985-87 along with survey numbers and also the details of the extent of land mentioned in the policy note in the year 2018-19 and 2019-20 along with survey numbers.

6.However, Mr.Richardson Wilson, Learned State Government Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 24 would submit that there is no specific details regarding the extent of lands. Since the Petitioner is only sincerely working regularly for retrieving properties of the Temples, he can give the facts which are known to him only whereas the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department should be in possession of all the details with regard to the allegations made in the Affidavit of this Petition especially with regard to the specific allegations made in Paragraph Number 9 of the Affidavit about the missing of 0.47 lakhs of acres of land.
7.With regard to the other limb of prayer viz., to secure the income derived from the properties relating to Doc.No.840 of 1945 dated 20.06.1945 and Doc.No.1342 of 1962 dated 14.09.1962 belonging to the Respondents 25 to 31 are concerned, the Respondents 1 to 24 shall also file a counter. More over, it is stated that the Documents viz., Doc.No.3953 of 2011 dated 10.02.2010 and Doc.No.9277 of 2019 dated 11.11.2019 have been created illegally by the encroachers to deal with the properties belonging to the Temples. Hence, the Respondents 1 to 24 are directed also to file a detailed counter in this regard.

8.Further, it is evident from the settlement deed dated 20.06.1945 that the income from the properties in S.Nos.368/1, 368/2, 368/3 and 369/1 have to be used for doing pooja in Arulmigu Avinashiappar Temple and in Arulmigu Subramaniasamy Temple and to the temples which have been arrayed as 25 to 28 and 31 Respondents. Even as per the document, properties should not be encroached and it should be used only for charity purposes. When these properties have been mentioned clearly in the settlement deed, it is not known on what basis Mr.N.Elango, Sub-Registrar, Sulur wrote a letter to Sub-Registrar, Annur on 22.11.2019 stating that S.Nos.368/1, 368/2, 368/3 and 369/1 are not poromboke lands or temple lands and there is no bar to register the document. The said information given by Mr.N.Elango, Sub-Registrar, Sulur is contrary to the record viz., settlement deed dated 20.06.1945. Therefore, “Mr.N.Elango, Sub-Registrar” who was working in the year 2019 in Sulur is suo motu, impleaded as 35th Respondent and he has to file an affidavit stating that on what basis, he had written a letter dated 22.11.2019 informing that the aforesaid lands do not belong either to temple or to the Government.

9.Mr.Richardson Wilson, Learned State Government Counsel takes notice on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 24, 29 and 30 and undertakes to file a detailed counter. Notice to the Respondents 25 to 28, 31 to 35 returnable by 05.07.2021. Private notice including e-mail, courier, whatsapp and speed post is also permitted. The Petitioner is also permitted to serve notice to the Respondents. Further, the 16th Respondent shall also file a separate counter in the next hearing as the Petitioner has already served copies of the documents on the 16th Respondent.
Call the matter on 05.07.2021.
[N.K.K.,J.] [T.V.T.S.,J.]
08.06.2021