Uncategorized

In the light of the finding recorded above and the observation made in regard to the manner and purpose of alienation, nothing more is required to be directed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a clarification that the property of the temple would not be considered as property of the HR & CE Department and its alienation would be as per the provision of Section 34 of the Act of 1959. There will be no order as to costs. (M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.) 11.08.2022

by Sekar Reporter · Published August 13, 2022 · Updated August 13, 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.08.2022

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

W.P.No.16079 of 2021

Rangarajan Narasimhan

Sanathana Dharmam / Sri Vaishnavam

Arangan Thirumutram

Kollidam Road, 400m West of Andavan Ashramam Srirangam, Trichy-620 006. .. Petitioner

The Addl.Chief Secretary to Govt of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.
The State of Tamil Nadu

Rep by its Principal Secretary

Department of Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.

The Commissioner

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai

Nungambakkam, Chennai-60034.

The Joint commissioner / Executive Officer Shri Ranganatha Swamy temple Srirangam, Trichy-620 006.
Ka.Va.Annan Thiruvenkatachariar
Ve.Kovil Vedavyasa Senthamarai Kannan Bhattar
Ve.Badri Narayana Bhattar
Sudharshana Rangachar
Singaperumal Uthama Nambi
Animal Welfare Board of India

Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and

Dairying, Govt. of India (Department of

Animal Husbandry and Dairying)

NIAW Campus, 42 Mile Stone Delhi-Agra Highway NH-2 Ballabhgarh, Haryana – 121 004.

The Inspector of Police

Srirangam Police station Srirangam Trichy-620 006.

The Director General of Police

Tamiladu Police Department

Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai-600004. .. Respondents

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus forbearing 1^st, 2nd and 3rd respondents from claiming temple properties as “HR and CE properties” and temples as “HR and CE Temples” in any of their communication to the public either through official communication or through briefs to the media and further forbear them from converting the properties dedicated to the deities in the temple or to the temple for any purpose other than religious affairs connected with the temple or the Sampradhaya of that particular temple as envisaged in S.34 of the HR and CE Act.

For the Petitioner : Mr.Rangarajan Narasimhan

Party-in-Person

For the Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram Advocate General assisted by

Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan

Special Government Pleader

(HR & CE) and

Ms.A.G.Shakeena

Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)

The writ petition has been filed to forbear respondents 1 to 3

from claiming temple properties as that of HR & CE Department and, at the same time, to forbear them from converting the

properties dedicated to the deities in the temple or to the temple for

any purpose other than connected with the temple.

The petitioner in person submitted that the property of the

temple may be out of the donation made by devotees and, therefore, it cannot be considered as property of the HR & CE Department, rather, it should remain the property of the temple alone. The HR & CE Department is treating it to be their property and, accordingly, alienating it without even consulting the trustees, thereby offending Article 26 of the Constitution of India. No temple property should be allowed to be alienated without the approval of the trustees, as otherwise, it would offend Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [for brevity, “the Act of 1959“]. The prayer is to restrain the respondent authorities from alienating the temple property for any purpose other than religious affairs, that too, without the approval

of the trustees.

We have considered the submissions made by the

petitioner, appearing in person.

The petitioner in person referred to Sections 23 and 34 of the Act of 1959, apart from Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the provisions aforesaid are quoted hereunder for ready reference:

“23. Power and duties of the Commissioner in respect of temples and religions endowments.—

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the administration of all temples (including specific endowments attached thereto) and all religious endowment shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any orders which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such temples and endowments are properly administered and that their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist:

Provided that the Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any temple or endowment unless the trustees concerned had a reasonable opportunity of making their

representations.”

“34. Alienation of immovable trust property.— (1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution:

Provided that before such sanction is accorded, the particulars relating to the proposed transaction shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereto; and all objections and suggestions received from the trustee or other persons having interest shall be duly consider by the Commissioner:

Provided further that the Commissioner shall not accord such sanction without the previous approval of the Government.

Explanation.— Any lease of the property above mentioned through for a term not exceeding five years shall, if it contains a provision for renewal for a further term (so as to exceed five years in the aggregate), whether subject to any condition or not, be deemed to be a lease for a period exceeding five years.

When according such sanction, the Commissioner may impose such conditions and give such direction, as he may deem necessary regarding the utilization of the amount raised by the transaction, the investment thereof and in the case of a mortgage regarding the discharge of the same within a reasonable period.
A copy of the order made by the Commissioner under this section shall be communicated to the Government and to the trustee and shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed.
The trustee may, within three months from the date of his receipt of a copy of the order, and any person having interest may within three months from the date of the publication of the order appeal to the Court to modify the order or set it aside.

(4-A) The Government may issue such directions to the Commissioner as in their opinion are necessary, in respect of any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution and the Commissioner shall give effect to all such directions.

Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the imams referred to in section 41.”

“26. Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right—

to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
to administer such property in accordance with law.”

Section 23 of the Act of 1959 refers to power and duties of the Commissioner in respect of temples and religious endowments. It stipulates the manner of administration and role of the trustees therein. It does not deal with the issue of alienation of the property of the temple. Rather, it is governed by Section 34 of the Act of 1959.
Section 34 postulates that any exchange, sell or mortgage and lease of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution, for a term exceeding five years, shall be null and void, unless it is sanctioned

by the Commissioner, as being necessary or beneficial to the

institution. The rider under Section 34 would not permit alienation of the property, unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner and is otherwise necessary or beneficial to the temple. The provision aforesaid does not mandate alienation of the property only for the religious purpose, but it should be necessary or beneficial to the institution. For illustration, if a land or building under the control of the temple is given on lease for a period of more than five years earn rent, it can be said to be necessary and beneficial to the

institution. There may be similar illustrations.

The aforesaid is only one part and otherwise before the Commissioner accords sanction, the proposed transaction needs to be published in the manner prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions in respect thereto. Thus, before sanction, the Commissioner is under an obligation to invite objections/

suggestions in relation to the property to be alienated and such objections/suggestions can be made by the trustees, apart from

other persons having interest and shall be duly considered by the Commissioner. Thus, relevant rider has been prescribed for alienation of the property even by the Commissioner and it can be

done only when it is necessary or beneficial to the institution.

In the light of the aforesaid, the argument that without consultation of the trustees, alienation of the property should not be

permitted would not hold water. However, if trustees have

objection for alienation of the property, they can raise an objection when publication is made seeking objections/suggestions. It is, however, clarified that while the Commissioner has power to alienate the property of the temple, it would not be considered to be the property of the HR & CE Department, but that of temple

itself.

In the light of the clarification made by us, we find that the restraint sought by the petitioner can be governed by the aforesaid and otherwise we do not find that the provision of Section 34 of the Act of 1959 offends Article 26 of the Constitution of India. It may be for that reason that the constitutional validity of Section 34 of the

Act of 1959 has not been questioned by the petitioner in person.

Accordingly, we have addressed the issue even in reference to Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

In the light of the finding recorded above and the observation made in regard to the manner and purpose of

alienation, nothing more is required to be directed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a clarification that the property of

the temple would not be considered as property of the HR & CE Department and its alienation would be as per the provision of Section 34 of the Act of 1959. There will be no order as to costs.

(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)

11.08.2022

Index : Yes/No bbr

To: