• All Sites
• sekarreporter.com 9445430817
• Customize
• Edit Page

• Howdy, sekarreporter

Skip to content

sekarreporter.com 9445430817

Menu

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY judge

2025:MHC:1129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON        :    09.04.2025

PRONOUNCED ON :     30.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

• P.Nos. 32503 of 2024 & 11487 of 2025and

W.M.P.Nos. 35321 of 2024 & 12972 of 2025

W.P.No.32503 of 2024

T.S.Sankar       … Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chief Additional Secretary,

Government of Tamilnadu,    Secretariat, Fort St.George,    Chennai.

2.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Board,

119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,    Thousand Lights, Nungambakkam,    Chennai  – 600 034.

3.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer,    Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Temple,    Thiruvannamalai.

4.The Zonal Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE),    Thiruvannamalai.

5.Jeevanantham                                                                              …  Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in

impugned order dated 05.04.2024 passed by second respondent in Na.Ka.No.102081/2023/A1 and quash the same and consequently to terminate the fifth respondent from the post of Chairman for Board of Trustees, Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Thiruvannamalai.

W.P.No. 11487 of 2025

1.T.S.Sankar

2.D.Deepa … Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Board,

No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Thousand Lights, Nungambakkam, Chennai  – 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer,    Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Temple,    Thiruvannamalai.

3.The Zonal Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE),    Thiruvannamalai.

4.The Assistant Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE),

Thiruvannamalai.                                                 …  Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose the petitioners Revision in R.P.363/2023 against the impugned order in M.P.70/2021/Aa2/ dated 15.03.2023.

For Petitioners in both W.P.Nos.       :  Mr.T.S.Sankar ( Party in person)

For R1 to R4  in

both W.P.Nos.             :  Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan

Special Government Pleader (HR & CE)

For R5 in

both W.P.Nos.          :   Mr.V.Srikanth        

COMMON ORDER

 “பவ ரமலரக ண டடய ரக ழவ ர ப ழவ ரவ ன ர ள           மவ ரபரங ள எ த அனற மவரக ரள க ய ர           தம மழ$நனற ரகவரவதக றவன நழரனய டம           ஆம ம பழ+வந ழ+யஞ ரல அண+ மழலய னர” …. THEVARAM

A r ul mi gu A r u n a c h ales w a r ar Temple is one of the most important

Hindu temples in our nation and is among the largest temples in India. Lord

Siva is worshipped as A r u n a c h ales w a r a r or A n n a m alaiyar. The temple is a

‘p a a d al p etra sthala m ’. The deity’s praise is sung repeatedly in the Ta mil B h akthi L iter ature, ‘T h e var a m ’, which was written in or about the the 7th century. It is also stated that in the 9th century, S aiva S aint Poet M a n ikavas a g a r composed the entire T hir uve m p a vai in the said temple. The K a rthig ai D e e p a m festival, celebrated on the full moon day, is also special to the temple.  The A r u n a c h ala Hill, at the base of which the temple is located and the entire township itself is considered sacred, and millions of people visit the temple and undertake G i r ivala m . We are concerned with the matters regarding the said temple and certain specific endowments associated with it in these Writ Petitions.

2. These two writ petitions relate to the Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Temple in Thiruvannamalai. As the arguments overlap and pertain to different aspects of the same temple, the matters are disposed of through this common order.
3. A) W.P. No. 32503 of 2024:

• W.P.No.32503 of 2024 is filed with a prayer to call for the

records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.102081/2023/A1 dated 05.04.2024, passed by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Board, Chennai, and to quash the same. And consequently to terminate the fifth respondent, namely Jeevanantham, from the post of Chairman of the Board of Trustees of

Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Thiruvannamalai.

• The fifth respondent, was appointed as a Trustee and thereafter,

elected as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Temple. As per Section 26(1-A) if a person has a subsisting lease with the temple or the religious endowment he is disqualified to be a trustee. The below mentioned picture is the property of the Kalasanti Kattalai, an endowment attached to the temple.

• The petitioner being a lessee has put up a structure and is

residing in the first floor and commercially occupying one shop in the ground floor  even today.  As such, he is disqualified to be a trustee without any iota of doubt whatsoever.  However, with all his might, the fifth respondent and the official respondents, have tried to defend the indefensible, making all kinds of arguments and hence the following detailed judgment.

• The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that

on 01.07.2023, the second respondent undertook the exercise of appointing five board members of trustees to the temple. The petitioner claims that all of them have a political background. The fifth respondent is the State Executive Member of the ruling political party, and one of his family members served as the Municipal Chairman. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the fifth respondent entered into a rental agreement dated 13.12.2010, registered as Document No.12381 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Registrar,

Thiruvannamalai, concerning one of the trusts associated with the Arunachaleswarar Temple, namely Kalasanthi Arakattalai, measuring an area of 1,995 square feet. In fact, the fifth respondent demolished the building of the said Arakattalai and constructed a two-storied RCC concrete structure with a car parking shed.  He operates his business under the name and style of ‘TSR Construction’ on the ground floor of the said building and uses the first floor as his residence. Therefore, the fifth respondent is disqualified from being nominated as a trustee or elected as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Consequently, the petitioner filed a complaint, but no action was taken on it.

• The petitioner previously approached this Court via W.P.No.25295 of 2024, and by an order dated 12.09.2023, the second respondent, the Commissioner, was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and issue an order within six weeks. In response, the impugned order was issued.
• The impugned order first records the submissions of the

complainant, T.S.Sankar which are as follows:

(a)According to the complainant, the fifth respondent, Jeevanantham, through his brother Chinnadurai, encroached upon the property of Sri Kalasanthi Arakattalai in 2006. One A.B.T.Sakthivel, the original tenant of the property, was in arrears of rent and failed to surrender possession to the Kattalai. Consequently, the trust filed O.S No.2 of 2003, resulting in a decree for eviction, and for possession  E.P. No. 69 of 2004  was filed on 27.01.2006. Thereafter, the execution petition was closed on 26.06.2007.

(b)The fifth respondent, Jeevanantham and his family, permanently encroached upon the property.  In the year 2010, he registered a lease in his name. He constructed a 4,000 square feet building on his own. He has obtained an electricity connection No.022020181286, in his own name and two other new connections were also obtained by him.   He had also shifted the transformer by paying Rs.1,23,770/.

Jeevanantham did not even take any permission to demolish the existing heritage structure, which was more than 100 years old.

(c)Therefore, once Jeevanantham took on lease of the property of the Arakattalai attached to the temple, he became disqualified from acting as a trustee thereafter. 9. The impugned order then records the inquiry with the Joint Commissioner and the Executive Officer of Arunachaleswarar Temple, which is as follows:

(i) In their report, they have stated that Jeevanantham was appointed as a trustee by G.O(P).No. 163 of the department, dated 28.06.2023. Thereafter, he was elected as the Chairman on 03.07.2003.

(ii)In their report, they have stated that, as far as the subject matter property is concerned, it is managed by the trustees of the said trust and a part of the income is being paid to the temple. They have further stated that the registered lease entered into on 13.12.2010 ended on 20.12.2013 and Jeevanantham has vacated the property and surrendered possession to the Arunachaleswarar Kalasanthi Arakattalai itself. As of the date of notification, Jeevanantham is not a tenant under the Kattalai.

9. Thereafter, the impugned order records the version of the fifth

respondent, Jeevanantham which is as follows:

(a) He stated that he was appointed by G.O(P).No. 163, dated 28.06.2023. Thereafter, he was elected as the Chairman by the other trustees on

03.07.2023.  It is not correct to state that he was elected as the Chairman even prior to that.

(b)As per the judgment of this Court in W.P No.574 of 2015, a person who is a devotee and believer can be appointed as a trustee.  Merely because he has political connections or because his younger brother, Mr.R.Sridhar, is an office bearer of a political party, is not a disqualification.

(c)The contention of Mr.T.S.Sankar that the said Jeevanantham is disqualified is erroneous. It is specifically contended that when he

took the property on lease on 13.12.2010, he vacated it as early as 20.12.2013 and handed over possession to Mr.Thirumoorthy, the trustee of the said Arakattalai. Thereafter, one Mr.V. Sakthivel has been running his business as ABT Parcel Service. He is not in occupation of the property as a tenant as of the date of his appointment as the trustee.

10. The impugned order further records about the further enquiry

of the Joint Commissioner as follows:

• the Joint Commissioner found that the property in question

belongs to the said Kalasanthi Arakattalai, with a total extent of 4,400 square feet. Of this, 2,405 square feet is in the occupation of one Sakthivel, who is carrying on his business of ABT Parcel Service.

• In the remaining 1,995 square feet on the ground floor, there

are three commercial shops and car parking, while the first floor is the residence of Jeevanantham.

• The said Sakthivel is enjoying 2,405 square feet without any

rental agreement whatsoever. However, the property was divided between the said Sakthivel and Chinnadurai, the brother of Jeevanantham.

• In the year 2006, Chinnadurai initially became the tenant. Thereafter, in the year 2010, Jeevanantham became the tenant.
  • Jeevanantham had demolished the original heritage building

without the permission of the department and constructed his own building on 1,995 square feet.

• However, one Murugappan, who is managing the Arakattalai,

has stated that the entire place is with Sakthivel.

• Further, the Joint Commissioner also examined other

independent witnesses in his report.  In the 1,995 square feet, Jeevanantham is in occupation of the northern side shop and the southern side shop is occupied by Boopathy for two-wheeler repair. In the garage, Sakthivel, Jeevanantham and one advocate Puzhalendhi are parking their cars. The Kalasanthi

Arakattalai is not maintaining proper records relating to the rental income.

11. After recording the above report, the Commissioner further

records his conclusions in the inquiry which are as follows:

(a)The Commissioner gives a finding that he is unable to ascertain the actual particulars of leasing out the property. The Commissioner accepts the statement of one Murugappan, who states that Jeevanantham is not in occupation of the property and chooses to believe the letter written by one Thirumoorthy, the trustee of the said Kattalai, that Jeevanantham had surrendered possession of the property in the year 2013.

(b)Therefore, the Commissioner holds that the said Jeevanantham does not suffer disqualification as per Section 26(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (herein referred to as the “Act”) and further leaves it open to the petitioner to approach the Joint Commissioner with documents in respect of his

disqualification.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

12. It can be seen that initially, when the writ petition came up for

hearing on 07.11.2024, notice and private notice were also ordered to the fifth respondent.  On 18.11.2024 itself, the fifth respondent had received notice in the writ petition. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing on 28.11.2024,

12.12.2024, 07.01.2025, 20.02.2025, 26.02.2025, 12.03.2025, 18.03.2025, and

24.03.2025.  The petitioner in person, also tried to argue the case on some occasions earlier. However, the matter was taken up for arguments on 24.03.2025. On 24.03.2025, a detailed order was passed by this Court requesting the Secretary, the District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai, to conduct an inspection and submit a report to the Court as to whether the fifth respondent, Jeevanantham, is still in occupation of the said property. Accordingly, the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority submitted her inspection report via communication dated 28.03.2025. The entire report is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

“ In o b e dien c e of the H o n o u r a ble high c o u rt of J u dic ature or d er in W. P N o. 3 2 5 0 3 of 2 0 2 4 a n d W. M . P N o. 3 5 3 2 1 of 2 0 2 4 d ated 2 4.0 3.2 0 2 5. I m o st h u m bly S u b mit the rep ort is a s follo w s.

It is resp e ctfully sub mitted that, I visited the o n e sh o p situated o n the gr o u n d flo or a n d the resid ential b uildin g p ointed o ut in the w rit p etition o n 2 4. 0 3.2 0 2 5 at 6. 3 0. P. M , a c c o m p a nie d w ith Tr. Ve nkatesa n, S e ni or A d m inistrative A s sistant, D i strict L e g al S e rvices A ut h o rity, Tiruva n n a m alai a n d Tr. B ala ch a n d ar,

O f fic e A s sista nt of the D i strict L e g al S e rvice s A u th ority,

Tiruva n n a m alai. T h e said pr o p erties w er e identified to m e by Tr.Se nthil, the M a n a g e r of A r ul mi g h u A r u n a c h ales w a r ar T hir ukovil, Tiruva n n a m alai.

I h u m bly su b mit that, the S h o p in the gr o u n d flo or a n d resid ential b uildin g in the first flo or m e ntion e d in the w rit p etition b el o n g e d to kalas anthi ar akattalai is situate d in w ard N o. 1, B l o ck N o . 2 2 in survey N o . 1 3 9 6/1, W h e n I visited this sh o p the d o o r w a s locke d w ith a shutter. T h ere is n o display of a ny n a m e b o ard o n the e ntra n c e of the sh o p a n d top of the sh o p, a djas c e nt to this sh o p o n e c a r p arkin g sh e d, tw o c o m m er cial sh o p s a n d a staircase of 3 feet w idth p e arin g to the first flo or a n d this staircas e is locke d with a n iron g ate, the stairc as e is o nly w a y to rea c hin g to reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or. A t this tim e Tr. A n a n d a n, w atch m a n servic e in A r ul mi g h u A r u n a c h ales w a r a r T hir ukovil, Tiruva n n a m alai c a m e to m y p hysic al insp e ction sp ot. W h e n I e n q uired hi m, h e dis cl os e d to m e that the said sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or is b ein g r un by Tr. R.Je eva n a nth a m, u n d e r the n a m e a n d style of T. S. R C o n stru ction a n d that o n e Tr. G a n e s a n is servin g in the said sh o p for the p ast 1 0 ye a rs. T h e said sh o p is to b e o p e n e d at 1 0 A M to 6. 0 0 P M a n d that the said sh o p is is in ru nnin g c o n dition till d ate. W h e n I e n q uired hi m a b o ut the resid ential p o rtion o n the first flo or, h e ple a d e d ign or a n c e a b o ut the p a rticulars of that resid ential p o rtion. W h e n I m a d e e n q uiries w elling in that vicinity w a s inf or m e d that the sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or is r un by

Tr. R.Je eva n a nth a m u n d e r the n a m e a n d style of T S R

C o n stru ction a n d Tr. R. G a n e sa n is w o rkin g in that sh o p. W h e n I m a d e e n q uiry a b o ut the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or, they replied that s o m e p ers o ns o n s o m e o c c a sio ns are use d to stay in that b uildin g, a n d that b uildin g is u n d e r the c o ntr ol of Tr. R.Je eva n a nth a m a n d that p a rticulars a b o ut the said resid ential p ortion are b e kn o w n to Tr. G a n e s a n, w o rkin g u n d er Tr. R.Je eva n ath a m. T h e staircase leavin g to the first flo o r is locke d. I insp e cted the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or by stan din g o n the street, T h ere w er e a Tw o A ir c o n dition ers, three w in d o w s a n d a s m all ve ntilation fa cility availa ble there. M o r e o v er the d o o r o n the staircas e lea din g to the reside ntial p ortion o n the first flo or w a s als o foun d to h ave b e e n locked. In this reg ard I h a ve e n cl os e d the p h ot o g r a p h a n d sh o w n a s the o n e sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or w hic h is m a rke d in gre e n c ol o ur a n d the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or w hi ch is m a rke d in blue c ol o ur the staircase lea din g to resid ential b uildin g o n the first flo or w hi ch is sh o w n in o r a n g e c ol o ur. T h e said p h ot o is sub mitted w ith m y rep o rt as d o c u m e nt N o 1. Sin ce I c o n clu d e d m y insp e ction at night 0 8. 3 0 P M , I h a d return e d with o ut insp e cting a ny d o c u m e nt a s it w a s latenight.

F u rther, I h u m bly sub mit that, I Visited the office of the

A r ul mi g h u A r u n a c h ales w a r a r T hir ukovil, D e v a stha n a m at 11.0 0 A M o n 2 5.0 3.2 0 2 5 to insp e ct the releva nt d o c u m e nts c o n c er nin g the o n e sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or a n d the resid ential b uildin g o n the first flo o r m e ntion e d in the w rit p etition.

F u rther, I h u m bly su b mit that, the K a l as a nthi A r akattalai w a s esta blishe d o n 3 0. 0 4.1 9 2 0 a n d the s aid e n d o w m e nt is atta ch e d to A r ul mi g h u A r u n a c h ales w ar a r T hir ukovil, Tiruva n n a m alai. In this re g ard I su b mitted the c o p y of d o c u m e nt w ith m y rep o rt a s d o c u m e nt N o. 2.

F u rther, I h u m bly sub mit that, the S h o p o n the gr o u n d flo or a n d reside ntial b uildin g in the first flo or m e ntion e d in the w rit p etition b el on g e d to kalasa nthi a r akattalai is situated in w ar d N o . 1, B l o ck N o. 2 2 in survey N o. 1 3 9 6/1 it w a s take n by Tr. R.Je eva n a nth a m throu g h re gister le ase a gre e m e nt for three ye a rs o n 1 3. 1 2.2 0 1 0 fro m Tr. J.S. R. Tr u m o o rthy s on of J.S. R. S e e n uva sa n, the M a n a gin g Tr ustee of kalasa nthi a r akattalai atta ch e d to A r ul mi g h u A r u n a c h ales w a r ar

T hir ukovil, Tiruva n n a m al ai. In this re g ar d I su b mitted the c o p y of re gistere d lease a gre e m e nt is su b mitted w ith m y rep o rt a s d o c u m e nt N o . 3.

F u rther, I h u m bly su b mit that, W h e n I insp e cte d the registered lease a gr ee m e nt the pr o p erty sh o w n a s in sc h e d ule of pr o p erty m e a s ures as follo ws 1 9 9 5 rJu mo kidapy; cs;s kz;Rth; ehl;L Xl;L tPL rfy fl;Lnfhg;g[ld; rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ/  kpd; ,izg;g[ vz; 18865 vd fz;Ls;sJ/ B ut d u rin g m y p h ysical inspe ction I fou n d that there are n o m u d c o n stru ction o r c o u ntry tiled ro of as m e ntion e d in the lease a gre e m e nt.

F u rther, I h u m bly su b mit that, the sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or m e ntion e d in the w rit p etition a n d the othe r sh o ps o n the gr o u n d flo or b uilt a dja c e nt to the a b ov e m e ntion e d sh o p lo ok to h a ve b e e n c o n structed a b o ut 1 5 ye a rs b a ck. T h e resid ential b uildin g o n the first flo or lo ok to h a ve b e e n c o nstru cted a b o ve tw o o r three ye a rs b a ck.

F u rther I h u m bly sub mit that, I find o n e letter fro m the file of K a l as a nthi A r akattalai files, I insp e ct the letter it sh o w s that Tr.Tiru m o o rthy wr ote a letter w hi c h w a s attested by Tr. V.S akthivel o n 2 0. 1 2.2 0 1 3 a n d stated that leas e h old er Tr. R.Je eva n a nth a m’s lease p erio d of three ye a rs w a s c o m pleted a n d h e h a n d e d ov er the pr o p erty to trust a n d h e va c ated the leas e pr o p erty. T h e lease h old er Tr. R.Je eva n a ntha m is n ot willin g to c o ntinue the lease a n d that h e receive d b a ck the a d va n c e a m o u nt a n d that there is n o b ala n c e of rent a n d that Tr.Tiru m o o rthy a ssures that h e h as g ive n c o ns e nt to c a n c ellation d e e d of the registered lease a gr ee m e nt at a later d ate throu g h su b register office. In this re g ard I su b mitted the letter w ith m y rep o rt d o c u m e nt N o. 4. Till d ate the registere d lease a gr ee m e nt h as n ot b e e n c a n c elled a n d n o d o c u m e nts are a vaila ble in the kalasa nthi a r akattalai files m aintaine d by the A r ul mi gh u

A r u n a c h ales w a r a r T hirukovil, Tiruva n n a m alai, in this reg ar d.

F u rther I h u m bly sub mit that, Tr. R.J e ev a n a ntha m h a d h a n d e d ove r the lease pr o p erty to trust o n 2 0. 1 2.2 0 1 3, A fter that, fro m 2 0. 1 2. 2 0 1 3 to till d ate, I d o n ot find a ny releva nt rec ords fro m the file of kalasa nthi kattalai into sh o w as to w h o is in p ossessio n the sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or a n d in the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or m e ntion e d in the w rit p etition. T h ere is n o a ny o n e d o c u m e nt in the file of kalas anthi kattalai to sh o w that Tr. G a n es a n is in p ossessio n of the sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or a n d reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or m e ntion e d in the w rit p etition, In m y P h ysic al insp e ction a n d m y e n q uiry I c a m e to kn o w that the sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo o r a n d the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or m e ntion e d in the w rit p etition h a s b e e n m aintaine d by Tr.S. G a n e s a n for the p ast 1 0 ye ars.

F u rther I h u m bly sub mit that, d u rin g m y p h ysical insp e ction, the sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or a n d the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or m e ntion e d in the w rit p etition are c o n crete b uildin g, a n d there are ele ctricity c o n n e ctions a vaila ble in the b uildin gs. In this re g ard, I re qu ested for insp e ction the E l e ctricity d o c u m e nts fro m the te m ple a d ministration, o n m y re qu est h e sh o w s the d o c u m e nt a n d I p er use d it. T h e ele ctric service c o n n e ction N o 1 2 8 6 as c o m m er cial c o n n e ction assign e d by E . B D e p a rt m e nt to the sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or m e ntion e d in the W r it P e tition. T h e E B service c o n n e ction in a sin gle p a c e w a s o btaine d by Tr. R.Je eva n a nth a m o n 2 3.11.2 01 1.on p ay m e nt of d e p o sit of R s. 1 8 0 0/-. In this re g ard I su b mitted the d o c u m e nt N o. 5 with m y rep ort. C o n tinu o usly ele ctrical c o ns u m ption c h arg es h a ve b e e n p aid for the sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or m e ntione d in the w rit p etition. T h e d o c u m e nt to sh o w ele ctricity c o ns u m ption c h arg e of R s. 1 5 9 1/-w a s p aid for the sh o p m e ntion e d in the w rit p etition, In this re g ard I su b mitted the d o c u m e nt with m y rep ort a s d o c u m e nt N o . 6.

F u rther I h u m bly sub mit that, a n other o n e ele ctric service c o n n e ction N o 1 6 2 8 a s d o m e stic service c o n n e ction to the resid ential b uildin g o n the first flo or m e ntion e d in the W r it P e tition. In the c a p a city a s a n o w n er, a n a p plication o n

1 7. 0 5.2 0 2 3 in the n a m e of Tr. R.Je eva n a ntha m w a s sub mitted to T A N G E D C O filin g ele ctric service c o n n e ction a n d a n a m o u nt of R s. 1 5 3 3 6/- w a s p aid o n 2 6.0 5.2 0 2 3 a n d ele ctric service c o n n e ction N o. 1 6 2 8 w a s give n for reside ntial ele ctricity service in a triple p a c e c o n n e ction, at that p oint of time, the c ellp h o n e n u m b er of the a b o ve R . J e eva n a ntha m w a s registered

9 4 4 3 2 2 5 4 3 7. In this re gard I su b mitted the d o c u m e nt with m y rep ort as d o c u m e nt N o . 7. In c o ntinuation, fro m the u nit readin g in the m eter of S. C N o 1 6 2 8 for the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or, the ele ctricity servic e c o n n e ction is for the said resid ential b uildin g is live. I a m su b mitted the d o c u m e nt N o . 8 al on g with m y rep ort to sh o w that as p er c o n su m e r rec ord n o ele ctricity c h arge s w er e p aid sin c e c urrent c o n s u m e d as less than the limit fixed by the g o ver n m e nt a b ov e the c o n s u m ption of g o ver n m e nt li mit al o n e. C h a r g es are p a ya ble.

F u rther I h u m bly su b mit that, the a b o ve said ele ctricity service c o n n e ction N o. 1 6 2 8 a n d 1 2 8 6 w a s transferred o n 1 3. 1 0.2 0 2 3 fro m Tr. R.Je eva n a ntha m to M a n a gin g Tr ustee, S ri

A r u n a c h ales w a r a r kalasa nthi a r akattalai throu g h F O R M – 4 R E F E R T O R E G U L A T I O N 5 ( 7) U N D E R T A K I N G for m as attested as a witness Tr. G a n e s a n w a s sub mitted by o nline a p plication. In that n a m e transfer a p plication of ele ctricity service c o n n e ctions, the m o bile n u m b e r of Tr. R.J ee va n a nth a m ( 9 4 4 3 2 2 5 4 3 7 ) al o n e w a s registered. In this reg ard I sub mitted the d o c u m e nt w ith m y rep o rts as d o c u m e nt N o . 9 (related to S C N o 1 6 2 8 – sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or) a n d 1 0 (related to S C N o 1 2 8 6 – resid ential b uildin g o n the first flo or).

F u rther I h u m bly sub mit that, o n p er us al of the e ntire rec or ds of K a l as a nthi A r akattalai Tir uva n n a m alai, the J oint C o m m issio n er of H i n d u R eligi ous C h a rita ble E n d o w m e nt

Tr. R. S u d h a rsh a n Tiruva n n a m alai sub mitted a rep ort in e/f/vz;/ 3821/2023/M2/ehs; 29.12.2023 that the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo o r is utilized by Tr. R . J e eva n a nth a m. S u b s e q u e ntly the J oint C o m m i ssi on er of H i n d u R e li gi ous C h a ritable E n d o w m e nt

Tr. R. S u d h a rsh a n Tiruva n n a m alai sub mitted a rep ort in e/f/vz;/ 3821/2023/M2/ehs; 07.02.2024 sub mitted a rep ort statin g that a m o n g est the gr o u n d flo or sh o ps, the last n orther n sh o p b uildin g is in e xclusive utilization of Tr. R.Je eva n a n d h a m, In this reg ar d I sub mitted th ose d o c u m e nts N o. 11( 2 n os) al o n g with m y rep ort.

F u rther h u m bly su b mit that, A s p er pr o c e e din gs in e/f/vz;/3821/2023/M2/ehs;;: 07.03.2024 sub mitted by Tr. R. S u d h a rsh a n, the J oint C o m m issio n er of H i n d u R e ligio us

C h a ritable E n d o w m e nt, Tiruva n n a m al ai, h as a ns w ere d to q u eries a s “ N O ” . o n the b asis of the rep ort give n by Tr. M u r u g a p p a n, the A d m i nistrator of A r ul mig h u S ri

A r u n a c h ales w a r a r koil K a l a s a nthi A r akattalai. In this reg ar d I sub mitted th ose d o c u m e nts N o 1 2 a n d N o 1 3 al on g with m y rep ort.

F u rther I h u m bly sub mit that, T mt. C . J othi, J oint

C o m m issio n er/ E xe c utive O f fic es of H i n d u R eligi o us C h a ritable

E n d o w m e nt, Tiruva n n a m alai, c alled for c e rtain p a rticulars fro m

Tr.                                                          T hiru m o o rthi,                                                         A d m inistrator                                                  trustee                                   ( K al as a nthi

A r ak attalai), N o . 2, Ve nkatas ala M u d ali street, P o o n g a N a g ar, C h e n n ai, N a g a r as p er letter e/f/vz;/1043/2023/M6/ehs; 3 0. 0 5.2 0 2 4. In this reg ard, I su b mitted the d o c u m e nt N o. 1 4 al on g with m y rep ort. Till d ate n o p a rticulars receive d by J oint C o m m issio n er/ E xe c utive O f fic er of H i n d u R eligio us C h a ritable E n d o w m e nt, Tiruva n n a m alai fro m Tr. T hir u m o o rthi,

A d m inistrator trustee ( K ala sa nthi A r akattalai).

 

F u rther I h u m bly su b mit that, I insp e cte d the murhiz (g) vz;/ 163 ehs; : 2 8. 0 6. 2 0 2 3 by w hi c h Tr. R.J e eva n a n d h a m w a s a p p ointed a s ( N ot listed) Tr ustee. In c o ntinu ation of the sa m e, in the m e etin g held for ele ction for the presid ent of b o ard of trustee h eld o n 0 3. 0 7. 2 0 2 3. T h e a b o ve R . J e e va n a n d h a m w a s u n a ni m o usly ele cted a s c h air m a n of the b o ard of trustees a n d h e to ok c h arg e as the c h air m a n o n 0 3. 0 7. 2 0 2 3. In this reg ard I sub mitted the d o c u m e nts N o 1 5 al on g with m y rep o rt..

F u rther I h u m bly su b mit that, I find o n e d o c u m e nt related to gryp 1 4 3 3 – 1 4 3 4 d e m a n d re gister indicates that a su m of R s. 6 3 0 0/- to w ards the e ntire kattalai fees for the p eri o d fro m 0 1. 0 7.2 0 2 4 to 3 0. 0 6. 2 0 2 5 h as b e e n p aid by the A d m i nistrative

Tr uste e Tr. Tiru m o o rthy in the n a m e of Tr. Ay ya S u b r a m a niya

M u d aliyar, vide re ceipt n u m b e r 8 7 0 6/1 4.1 0. 2 0 2 4. In this reg ard I su b mitted those d o c u m e nts N o 1 6 a n d 1 7 al on g with m y rep ort..

F i n ally, I m o st h u m bly sub mit that, T hr o u g h o ut m y p hysic al inspe ction a n d insp e ct the releva nt rec or ds of the ka alsa nthi kattalai attac h e d to the S ri A r ul mig h u

A r u n a c h ales w a r a r te m ple, the first flo or of the b uildin g for the resid ential p ur p os es a n d o n e sh o p in the gr o u n d flo or in w ar d N o 1, B l o ck n o 2 2, S. N o 1 3 9 6/1 is p ointed o ut in the w rit p etition o c c u pie d by Tr. R.Je eva n a ntha m a n d Tr.S. G a n e s a n is e m pl o ye e u n d er Tr. R.Je eva n a ntha m for a lon g p eri o d of tim e. D u ri n g m y p hysic al insp e ction o n the sp ot, Tr. R.J e eva n a n d h a m a n d Tr. R . G a n e s a n are n ot in the sp ot, s o I c o uld n ot a ble to e n q uire the m a n d d urin g m y tw o d ays insp e ction, a s the sh o p o n the gr o u n d flo or sh utter, w a s locke d u n d er key a n d the g ate of staircase leadin g to the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or is als o u n d er the lock a n d key. S o I c o uld n ot a ble to insp e ct the inne r p o rtion of the o n e S h o p o n the gr o u n d flo or a n d the inner p ortion o n the reside ntial b uildin g o n the first flo or is p ointed o ut in the W r it P e tition.

I m o st h u m bly sub mitted m y d etaile d rep ort to o u r lordship for kind p e rus al a n d c o n sider ation. ”

1. Thus, it can be seen that the Secretary of the District Legal

Services Authority has found every aspect of the report of the Joint

Commissioner, which was extracted in the impugned order by the

Commissioner, to be factually correct.  Of the total extent of the property, the original heritage building that comprised 1,995 square feet seems to have been demolished and a new construction has been put up by Jeevanantham. The ground floor consists of shops and a car park, while the first floor is a residential portion. The registered lease agreement was never cancelled and there are subsequently no records regarding the possession of the property available with the said Kalasanthi kattalai.

1. The stand taken by the official respondents before this Court,

along with the documents supplied, suggests that one Ganesan is the only person in occupation of the said building. However, the learned Secretary of the District Legal Servies Authority found that the fifth respondent, Jeevanantham, is in occupation of one shop on the ground floor and is occupying the first floor for his residential purposes and one S.Ganesan, who is now projected as a tenant, is none other than Jeevanantham’s own employee. The shutters were down during two days of inspection and the staircase was under lock and key.

1. In fact, it is stated in the report of the learned District Secretary that she was not even able to inspect the inner portion of the first floor of the said building. Once the District Secretary conducted the inspection and filed her report, the fifth respondent suddenly chose to appear before this Court through a learned counsel and filed his counter-affidavit along with objections to the report submitted by the District Legal Services Authority.
   1. Interestingly, the respondents 1 to 4 did not file any counter

affidavit, but chose to defend the writ petition vehemently on behalf of the fifth respondent throughout the proceedings. They filed a set of documents on

12.03.2025. The first document produced was a rental agreement dated

01.09.2024, which is engrossed on a Rs.50/- stamp paper purchased by one

N.Chandrasekaran of Manalurpet, bearing serial No. 2420, and purchased on

13.08.2014 by the said S. Ganesan.  The lease deed states that the said Ganesan has been a tenant in respect of the ground floor, admeasuring 47 ½ feet north-south and 42 feet east-west. The lease covers the ground floor, including three shops, as well as the first floor and two rooms therein for his personal occupation. It states that he has been paying a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The trustee, Thirumoorthy, agrees to the same.  It is also stated that the tenancy is for a period of five years.

1. The second document is the report of Mrs.M.Jyoti Lakshmi, Assistant Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai. She has categorically found that the entire trust property is occupied by private persons. The total extent of the trust property is 4,400 square feet. Of this, 2,405 square feet is occupied by one Sakthivel, who is conducting the ABT Parcel Service. The remaining 1,995 square feet has been built up with three commercial shops on the ground floor, along with vehicle parking and the first floor is being used as a residence by Jeevanantham. Even though a rental agreement for a sum of Rs.2,000/- was entered into with Jeevanantham, it is evident that the said Kattalai has effectively lost possession of the property to these people and the original purpose of the Kattalai is not being carried out.  The third document produced is a communication from the Joint Commissioner, Mr. Sudarshan, to the Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner also forwards the report of the

Assistant Commissioner and reiterates the findings contained therein.

1. The next document filed by the respondents 1 to 4 is a reply

from one K.A.Murugappan. He describes himself as K.A.Murugappan, Thiruvannamalai, Kalasandhi Arakattalai and his designation is not disclosed. Two specific questions are addressed to him, whether Jeevanantham is occupying the property belonging to the Kalasandhi Arakattalai. His answer is no. The further question is whether the said Jeevanantham has any dues for the rent in respect of the said Arakattalai. His answer is again no. The Joint Commissioner thereafter forwards the said answers to the Commissioner by his communication dated 07.03.2025.  The property tax receipt issued by the Municipality in the name of one Arumuga Muthaliyar, dated 22.03.2024, is also produced.  One K.Ayya Subramani Mudaliyar is said to have made a payment of Rs. 6,300/- to the Arunachaleswarar Temple and the same is recorded as a general donation vide receipt dated 14.10.2024.  A receipt signed by one S.Thirumoorthy states that he received a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on 05.01.2014 towards the entire ground floor and first floor rent, being

Rs.2,000/- per month.  For six months as if the receipt dated 05.01.2014 is also produced.  Another receipt No. 31, dated 08.07.2018, is produced.  By this receipt, it is stated that 12 months’ rent from July 2018 to June 2019 was received. Again, another receipt No. 33, dated 10.08.2019, is produced, in which it is stated that another Rs.24,000/- being the rent from July 2019 to June 2020 was received.  Then, another receipt No. 37, dated 10.07.2022 is produced.  It is stated that, by the said receipt, nine months rent from July 2022 to March 2023, amounting to Rs. 18,000/- is received. Another receipt, bearing No. 41, dated 28.06.2024, is also produced. This receipt states that the rent is Rs. 2,250/- and six months rent from January 2024 to June 2024 was received.   On 09.05.2024, a document is produced showing that the electricity connection now stands in the name of Kalasandhi Arakattalai. A similar electricity receipt in the name of Kalasandhi Arakattalai is also produced. Relying upon the said documents, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 argued that it is factually incorrect to contend that the fifth respondent is in occupation of the said property.

1. Since, the above documents were produced and the Commissioner  without provided any reason for believing the private individual, namely the trustee of the Kalasandhi Arakattalai, while disregarding the reports of the jurisdictional officers, namely the Assistant Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner, who conducted the inspection, physically examined the individuals, and recorded their observations in writing, this Court chose to direct the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, to inspect the premises immediately so that truth be ascertained.  In light of the specific assertion made by the writ petitioner that, it is only the fifth respondent, Jeevanantham, who occupies the building, the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority was promptly directed to inspect the premises and submit a report as per the aforementioned order. Consequently, she has submitted the report.
   1. Now, in the counter-affidavit filed by the fifth respondent,

while refuting the other allegations related to his appointment and the lease, it is stated that the fifth respondent entered into a rental agreement dated 13.12.2010 and the lease was for a period of three years. In the year 2013, with the acknowledgment from the trustees of the Arakattalai, the fifth respondent handed over possession of the property. The scandalous allegations are made against him by the writ petitioner, T.S. Sankar, since he is inimically disposed of towards him for taking action against the Ammani Ammal Trust which was retrieved by the temple. He obtained EB power connection only to help Kalasanthi Arakattalai.  However, he is not in occupation of the property once the lease came to an end by efflux of time in the year 2013. The fifth respondent has also filed strong objections to the report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority.  In paragraph No. 12, the fifth respondent has even stated that it is highly irresponsible on the part of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to have arrived at the conclusion based on surmises and conjectures about the persons in occupation. The objection  takes strong exception to the finding that Ganesan is serving under Jeevanantham.  It also finds fault with the inspection being carried out in quick time. The objections are made in detail with reference to each and every sentence of the report.

• Under these circumstances, the petitioner in person, Mr.T.S.

Sankar, and Mr.N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government

Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, along with Mr.V.Srikanth, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent, were heard in detail.

• The petitioner in person would first point out that, in respect

of the electricity connection, after he started making complaints on 13.10.2023, the name was transferred from Jeevanantham to the name of the Managing Trustee for Sri Arunachaleswarar Kalasanthi Arakattalai.  Even as of 17.05.2023, a new electricity connection was taken in the name of the fifth respondent, Jeevanantham, in respect of the very same premises by mentioning the name of Jeevanantham as the owner.  He would point out the Joint Commissioner’s report dated 29.12.2023, which categorically states that Jeevanantham is in occupation of the premises. The party in person points to the report of the Joint Commissioner dated 07.02.2024, in which he records the statement given by one Murugappan. Murugappan claims to be one of the hereditary trustees of the said Kalasandhi Arakattalai.  It is his case that the hereditary trusteeship was ordered in O.A.No. 5 of 1995, dated 24.04.1997. The property belongs to the said Kalasanthi Arakattalai.

• The total extent of the property is 4,400 square feet. One Sakthivel is in unauthorized occupation of 2,405 square feet, without even paying a single rupee as rent. The remaining 1,995 square feet was split up and given to one Chinnadurai in the year 2006. Thereafter, his brother, Jeevanantham, became a tenant in the year 2010.  The existing building was demolished and the present building was put up by the said Jeevanandam. However, he would state in the enquiry that the entire property is now the responsibility of one Sakthivel alone. Even in the said report, it is clearly stated that the northern-side shop is in the occupation of Jeevanantham. The report also states that the report of the Assistant Commissioner is already available for taking action under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The report categorically states that Jeevanantham is using the premises. The Joint Commissioner has enclosed photographs and videos. The party in person, thereafter, would rely upon Document No. 14 annexed in the report of the Secretary, DLSA, whereby it is mentioned that the said Murugappan is the only trustee looking after the day-to-day affairs and suddenly now receipts are sought to be obtained from one Thirumoorthy.
  • The party in person would then take this Court through the resolution that is passed by the trustees of Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple on 03.07.2023 thereby electing Jeevanantham as the Chairman and then would point out to the new items featuring the fifth respondent along with the Minister as if the Minister handing over the certificate to him, as if he has already become a Chairman of the Trust board which are all dated 01.07.2023. The said news was also shared by the fifth respondent on his social media handles and this was also on 01.07.2023. The party in person, thereafter, would produce a legal notice issued by one K.Saravanan, Advocate.  The legal notice was issued on 04.05.2013. In the said notice, it was categorically mentioned that the said three persons, including Jeevanantham, are only tenants and under their instructions, the electricity service connections cannot be changed, and the connection should not be shifted.
  • The objections were specifically overruled by a

communication dated 15.05.2013 from the Assistant Engineer by stating that upon the insistence of Jeevanantham and payment of Rs. 1,23,770/-, the transformer and the connections were shifted as per his request.  The objections issued at the last minute could not be considered. The party in person would also produce complaints made by third parties in the year 2021, categorically bringing to the notice that the said Jeevanantham and others are in occupation of the property.  The party in person would produce a photograph in which in respect of the northern shop, a name board was displayed, indicating that the shop was occupied by TSR Constructions and TSR Blue Metals, which are run by the fifth respondent and his family. The party in person would submit that the board was suddenly removed once this Court directed the inspection by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority.

• Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader taking through the documents would submit that it can be seen from the statements given by the trustees of Kalasanthi Arakattalai that the fifth respondent has vacated the property in the year 2013 and thereafter one Ganesan is only the tenant in respect of the said property. The inspection made by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority is not by considering all the documents and not by examining all the witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be categorically held that the fifth respondent has incurred any disqualification. He has been appointed as a trustee after due consideration. He has been elected as the Chairman by the other trustees. The petitioner T.S.Sankar himself is an encroacher and has committed certain fraudulent acts in respect of Ammani

Amman Madam Trust which is the subject matter in the connected Writ Petition. Therefore, no Writ Petition can be entertained at his instance.  In any event, the matter with reference to the trusteeship has to be gone into detail by the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner has only submitted that based on the clinching documents are produced before the Joint Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner will take action in accordance with law. Therefore, he would submit that this Writ Petition is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed.

• Mr.V.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

fifth respondent would submit that the findings of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority are totally perverse. Pointing out to the objections that is filed to the report, he would submit that if the allegation is with reference to occupation of the property of Kalasanthi Arakattalai firstly the premises of the said Arakattalai, whose Head Office is situated Chennai was never inspected.

The complete documents of the said Arakattalai were not considered. Further, the fifth respondent or Ganesan were not examined. The entire report is given only on presumption and surmises. The inspection was hurriedly made on the very same day of the order of the Court. The objections should be sustained and the report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority should not be accepted by this Court. Further, from the very statement of the managing Trustee, it can be seen that the petitioner has vacated the premises as early as in the year 2013 and he is not lessee in respect of the said Arakattalai. Therefore, the Writ Petition which is filed with an inimical  intention should be dismissed.

• The Learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner is

eminently qualified person to be the Chairman of the trust board and so far carrying out the activities of the trust efficiently. As a matter of fact, he has completed the major portion of the three years period. Therefore, there is nothing for this Court to interfere. Additionally with reference to the documents that are submitted by the petitioner in-person, he would submit that none of the documents clinchingly proved that the fifth respondent is only in occupation of the building in the absence of the positive proof that the fifth respondent is in occupation of the property.

• I have considered the rival submissions made and perused the

material records of the case.

• The following questions arise for determination in the instant

case;

1. ) W h ether the p etition er T. S. Sa nkar h as a lo c us

standi to m ai ntain the W r it P e tition ?

• ) W h ether the fifth resp o n d e nt/Jeeva n a nth a m

suffers disq u alificatio n as p er S e ctio n 2 6 of the Ta mil N a d u H i n d u R eligi o us & C h a rita ble E n d o w m e nts A c t, 1 9 5 9 ?

3. to w h at relief(s) a n d dire ctions are to b e issue d ?

• . Question No.1:

As far as the loc us stan di is concerned, it can be seen that the

petitioner T.S.Sankar is a Hindu and he is pleading that he is also one of the devotee of Sri Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. The same is not denied. Therefore, every devotee is entitled to bring such action in respect of the affairs of the temple. Further, though in this case, the order passed by the Commissioner is challenged, if it is to be read with the consequential prayer, it can be seen that it is essentially in the nature of q u o – w a r r a nt o and thereby, the qualification of the fifth respondent to hold the post of the trustee is being questioned and thus loc us stan di itself may not be a relevant aspect in the instant case. The only argument that is made is that the petitioner was also an encroacher of yet another trust property which is also attached to the same temple and therefore, he has developed a grudge against the fifth respondent. It may be the case of the respondent that the petitioner in person has reasons to have a personal grudge also that drived him to file a Writ Petition.  The Court will give primary concern only to the cause that is brought forward rather than the nature of the person. In any event, the Court is also the p arens p atriae of the property of the temple and has to entertain this matter relating to the property and administration of the temple and in that regard if facts are brought to the notice of the Court from which ever end, Court will see the truth or otherwise of the allegations rather than sweeping the allegations under the garb of the loc us stan di of the petitioner. Thus, I answer the question that this Writ Petition is very much entertainable and the petitioner has the loc us stan di to maintain the Writ Petition.

• . Question No.2:

Firstly, it is admitted by all concerned that the property in Tiruvannamalai Town, Ward No.1, Block No.22, Town Survey No.1396/1 admeasures 0.04.09 hectares (4400 sq.ft). It is further admitted that the said property belongs Sri Kalasanthi Arakattalai which is a specific endowment attached to the Sri Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple.  The Kattalai is for the deity and it is also admitted that the Kattalai is one of the endowments attached to the temple. From the impugned order passed by the second respondent, it can be seen that of the Kattalai property, a part contained 100 years old tiled structure and the remaining part of it was occupied by one Sakthivel. It can be seen that the Kattalai filed O.S.No.2 of 2003 and decree for eviction was also passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. Thereafter, execution petition was filed in E.P.No.69 of 2004. Pending the execution petition started the mischief. In the year 2006, it is seen that the fifth respondent’s family enters the scene. Without removing Sakthivel from the premises, the property is divided into two. 2405 sq.ft is left to be in the occupation of the said Sakthivel the balance of 1995 sq.ft in which the building was rented out to the brother of the fifth respondent namely Chinnadurai.

• It can be seen that Chinnadurai and fifth

respondent/Jeevanantham are sons of T.S.Ramamoorthy. Thus, the brother of the fourth respondent takes the property on lease from one of the trustees of the Kalasanthi Arakattalai namely C.Sivapooshanam, the rental agreement is dated 08.07.2006 the following is the schedule of property;

“jpUtz;zhkiy khtl;lk;. jpUtzz;hkiy ltd[; be/38. bghpa bjUtpy; cs;s ,lkhdJ/ ,jpy; thrtp jpUkz kz;lgj;jpw;F nkw;F. tlf;F. rf;jpnty; thlif ,lj;jpw;F bjw;F. mk;kzp mk;kd; nfhg[u bjUtpw;F fpHf;F. ,jpy; fpHf;F nkw;F 42 mo. tlf;F bjw;F 47/5 Mf bkhj;jk; 1995 rJuo mst[s;s kidapy; cs;s kz;Rth; fl;olk; ehl;L XL tPL rfy fl;Lf;nfhgg;[ld; ,jw;F rk;kej;g;gl;lJ/ kpd ;,izg;g [vz;/18665/”

• The said fact is not even denied by the fifth respondent or any

of the parties. When the property was given to the brother of the fifth respondent originally, the 100 years old structure was in existence. Thereafter, it seems that an arrangement is made within the family by which in the fifth respondent takes over from his brother. In the registered lease deed dated 13.12.2010 also the old structure with the description of the property is as exactly as above.

• Thus, it can be seen that it is only the fifth respondent who

unauthorizedly without even any permission of the department or the Kattalai has put up the construction. Neither the fifth respondent denies the same in the counter affidavit nor the other respondents denied the same, it is not the case of the Kalasanthi Arakattalai also which can be seen from the statement given from the authorities that they had put up the building. The fact that the fifth respondent had only put up the building is very categorical from the application for electricity connection which he makes during the relevant period. In his application he claims to be the owner of the building. As a matter of fact, when the original connection was sought to be changed and shifted a legal notice is also issued through one Advocate K.Saravanan, having address at No.38C Kosamadam Street, Tiruvannamalai, which notice the learned counsel issues on behalf of the trust to the EB authorities. In the said legal notice, it has been categorically proclaimed that the persons who are occupying the premises, including Jeevanantham, are only tenants and without their permission the electricity connection cannot be shifted. The objection was made in paragraph No.3 for changing the electricity service connection in the name of the tenant and the same is extracted hereunder:

“03.While so it is learnt that all of you are attempting to transfer or shit the electrical service connection in the name of the Trust to the names of some of the tenants. And none of the tenants are entitled to get service connections in respect of any portions of the trust property rented.”

• As a matter of fact, the said objections were rejected and it

can be seen that the fifth respondent has spent huge sum of Rs.1,23,770/- towards the shifting charges for the premises which is said to have been occupied from the year 2010-2013 only for a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- per month. The entire reply given by the Assistant Engineer is extracted hereunder:

“jpUtzz;hkiy efuk; nkw;F gphptpw;F cl;gl;l mk;kzpmk;kd; nfhg[u bjUtpy; cs;s kpd;khw;wp vz; 929 khw;wp mikf;fnfhhp jpU/R.$Pthde;jk; S/o.uhkK:h;jjp vz;/153. bghpa bjU. JpUtz;zhkiy mth;fs; mspj;j kDtpd; kPJ kjpg;gPL jahhpj;J mDkjp bgw;W kjpg;gPL bjhif U:gha; 1.23.770-?= brYj;jpagpd; ,jw;fhd gzp midbgw;W kpd;khw;wpia tlf;Fg[wkhf khw;wpaikf;f cz;lhd midj;J gzpiaa[k; Koj;J kpd;khw;wp bghLj;Jk; jUthapy; jh’;fs; jpU/K:h;j;jp S/o.rPDthrd;.

_ mUzhrny!;tuh; fhy rhe;jp fl;lis mwf;fl;lis eph;thfpf;fhf kpd;khw;wpia khw;wf;TlhJ vd rl;l mwptpg;gpid 20/04/2013 kw;Wk; 04/05/2013 njjpfspy; mDg;gpapUe;jPh;fs;/ Mdhy; kpd;khw;wp ,lk;khw;wk; bra;a[k; ,lk; efuhl;rpf;F brhe;jkhdJ vd;gjhYk;. kpd;khw;wpia khw;wpaikf;f TlhJ vd;W ve;j ePjpkd;wj;jpYk; ,Jehs; tiu jilnah tHf;nfh epYitapy; ,y;iy vd;gjhy; kpd;khw;wpia khw;wpaikf;Fk;gzp Kof;fg;gLk; vdw; jfty ;j’f;Sf;F fzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhss;g;gLfpwJ/”

• The case of the fifth respondent as well as the official

respondents is that Jeevanantham has got nothing to do with the said building and premises from the year 2013. However an application is made by the said Jeevanantham to TANGEDCO on 17.05.2023. It bears application

No.2020523352 for a new service connection in respect of the same premises. Jeevanantham claims to be the owner of the premises. The application was acted upon after collection of charge of Rs.15,336/-. The photograph of the fifth respondent is duly affixed and the file extract discloses an ownership certificate issued by the Revenue Department, a self declaration form which are all uploaded to the web portal of the TANGEDCO. The said document No.7 is annexed to the report of the District Secretary DLSA. The picture of the form is reproduced hereunder for ready reference;

• This is one clinching evidence for which the respondents have no explanation at all. It is only thereafter in the month of October 2023 suddenly steps are being taken to change the connections in the name of the Kattalai itself. The second clinching document is the earliest report by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.12.2023. The same is not connected to any dispute that is raised by the petitioner herein dated 22.12.2023 but on the basis of the Surveyor report. The Officer has performed her duty without fear or favour. She categorically states about the nature of the property, the extent of the property and the fact that it is divided into two and one part is under the occupation of one Sakthivel where ABT Parcel Service is being conducted and the other part being under the occupation of the fifth respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. She has stated that she has inspected the documents with reference to the revenue documents and with the help of the Surveyor the property was surveyed and gives the exact measurement of 2405 sq.ft being in occupation of Sakthivel and 1995 sq.ft consisting of three tops in the ground floor and garage and the first floor being used as residence by Jeevanantham. She categorically states that the very purpose of the Kattalai is defeated by the occupation. The said report is also duly enclosed by the Joint Commissioner who also categorically and clearly endorses and reflects the said issue.
• It is intriguing that the Commissioner simply refuses to

believe the Assistant Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner. The Commissioner instructs the Joint Commissioner to ask two questions to one Murugappan the trustee of the Kalasanthi Kattalai as to whether Jeevanantham is in occupation and whether Jeevanantham is in arrears, the said Muruganantham promptly says no. It is not considered by the Commissioner that if Jeevanantham has vacated the property then who is in the occupation of the said property and if the property had to be further leased out what was the procedure that is undertaken. It can be seen that the said Muruganantham or the other trustees never brought the story of one Ganesan being in occupation of the portions, but in the earliest statement made before the Joint Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner they have stated that the entire property is in the custody of one Sakthivel. The Commissioner is not simply bothered about the demolition of the heritage structure. The Commissioner does not ask the question as to who build the present structure. The Commissioner certainly is totally not bothered as to how such a big structure of four shops and one first floor residential premises is fetching only a paltry  sum of Rs.2,000/- to the endowment. The Commissioner simply closes his eyes to the electricity connection application that is made in the year 2023 in the name of Jeevanantham. The Commissioner pleads complete

ignorance of the actual facts. After giving all findings by a detailed order, the Commissioner once again says Joint Commissioner will enquire only to save the fifth respondent so as to allow him to continue.

• In fact from the photographs that is produced by the petitioner

in person, it can be seen that on top of the shop occupied by the fifth respondent, originally there was a Board of TSR Constructions, bearing the initials of the name of the fifth respondent’s father T.S.Ramamoorthy. Even in the proceedings, when under the directions of the Commissioner Mr.R.Sudharsan the Joint Commissioner summoned the trustee namely

Mr.Murugappan, he had stated that the entire property is now only occupied by Sakthivel. The story of one Ganesan being the tenant was never presented even before the Joint Commissioner in this very enquiry and relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

“fhyre;jp fl;lis” vdg;J Fwpgg;pll; fl;lis tifiar; rhh;e;j jdp rka epWtdk; vdt[k;. jpUtz;zhkiy mUs;kpF mUzhrny!;thu; jpUf;nfhapYf;F tlf;Fg;gf;fk; mike;Js;s ,e;j fhyre;jp fl;lisf;F brhe;jkhd jpUtz;zhkiy efh; thh;L vz;/1 gpshf; vz;/22 efh; g[y vz;/1396-1 gug;gpy; 4400 rJu mo ,lj;jpy; jpU/rf;jpnty; vd;gth; 2405 rJu mo ,lj;jpid vt;tpj thlif xg;ge;jKk; bra;Jf;bfhs;shky; gad;gLj;jp tUfpwhh; vdt[k; me;j mirah brhj;jpd; bjd;gFjpapy; mike;Js;s 1995 rJuo gug;gstpid kl;Lk; gphpe;J Kjypy; 2006k; Mz;L jpU/rpd;dJiu vd;gtUf;Fk; gpd;dh; 2010k; Mz;oy; jpU/$Pthde;jk; vd;gtUf;Fk; khj thliff;F tplg;gl;lJ vd;Wk; jpU/rpd;dJiu mtuJ Fj;jif fhyj;jpy; fl;lis brhj;jpd; bjd;gFjpapy; mike;Js;s 1995 rJuo gug;gstpy; mikag; bgw;wpUe;j giHa fl;llj;ij Jiwapd; fl;lis brhj;jpy; Vw;gLj;jpf; bfhz;lhh; vd;Wk; jw;nghJ nkw;brhd;d fl;Lkhdj;Jld; Toa fhyre;jp fl;lis brhj;jpd; bkhj;j ,lKk; jpU/rf;jpnty; vd;gth; bghWg;gpy; cs;sJ vdj; bjhptpj;jhh; vd;w tptuk; gzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf ;bfhs;sgg;LfpwJ/”

• For the first time, before this Court, the official respondents

sadly have produced the rental receipts as if one Ganesan is paying the rent. The fifth respondent is far better than the official respondents. In his objections and his counter atleast he does not specifically deny that the said Ganesan is working under him. Inspite of making several pages of application to the inspection report the fifth respondent did not at any point in the counter affidavit deny that the said Ganesan is his employee. Thus, the attempt made on behalf of the respondents amounts to furnishing the false evidence to mislead the Court. The detailed enquiry made by the Joint Commissioner namely Mr.R.Sudharshan categorically revealed the following.

• Even the specific questions that are raised by the

Commissioner has been answered as follows:

“mUsk;pF fhyre;jp mwff;l;lisf;F brhej;khd ,l’;fspd; mUfpy; cs;sth;fis tprhuiz bra;j tiftpYk;. ghh;itapl;l tifapYk; fl;lisf;F jpUtz;zhkiy efh; lt[d; rh;nt vz;/1396-?y; mikag; bgw;Ws;s ,lj;jpy; tlf;Fg;gFjpapy; 2405 rJuo gug;gst[s;s ,lj;jpy; giHa fl;llk; jpU/rf;jpnty; vd;gtuhy; ‘ABT Parcel Service’ elj;jg;gLfpwJ vd;gJk;. bjd;gFjpapYs;s 1995 rJuo gug;gst[s;s ,lj;jpy; Vw;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;s g[jpa fl;Lkhdj;jpy; 3 filfs;. 4 rf;fu Ch;jpfs; K:d;W epWj;Jtjw;fhd garage?k; kw;Wk; khof;F bry;tjw;fhd gofl;Lfs; nghd;wita[k; jiujsj;jpy; mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sd vd;gJk; mwpag;gl;lJ/ Kjy; jsj;jpy; 1995 rJuo gug;gstpw;Fk; etPd trjpfSld; Toa brhFR miwfSk; FoapUg;g[k; mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ ghh;f;fgl;lJ/ jiujsj;jpy; cs;s filfspy; tlf;Fnthu fil mikg;g[ jpU/$Pthde;jk; vd;gthpd; jdpg;gl;l gad;ghl;oYk; bjw;Fnthuj;jpy; ,U rf;fut[{h;jp gGJghh;g;g[ fil jpU/g{gjp j-bg/ ePynkfk; vd;gth; gad;ghl;oYk; cs;sd/ 4 rf;fu Ch;jpfs; epWj;jf; Toa garage?y; jpU/rf;jpnty;. jpU/$Pthde;jk; kw;Wk; tHf;Fiu”h; jpU/g[fnHe;jp Mfpnahhpd; Ch;jpfSf;F epWj;jkhfg; gad;gLj;jg;gl;L tUfpwJ vd;gJ vd;dhy; nehpy; fhzg;gl;lJ/ fhyre;jp fl;lisf;fhd bjhifia jhnd jpUf;nfhapYf;Fr; brYj;jptpl;L thlifapy; fHpj;Jf; bfhs;tjhf jpU/rf;jpnty; tha;bkhHpahf vdJ jy Ma;tpd; nghJ vd;dplk; nehpy; bjhptpj;jhh; vdg; gzptld; rkhg;;gpf;fgg;LfpwJ/”

• The Joint Commissioner’s report as well as the Assistant Commissioner’s report are based on a thorough inspection of all the records. Apart from the same, the Assistant Commissioner categorically states that she had examined several persons in the neighbourhood and have come to the conclusion that it is only Jeevanantham who is occupying the premises. It can be seen that the fifth respondent Jeevanantham  want to usurp the huge area of 1995 sq.ft., only for a paltry rent of Rs.2,000/- and also want to usurp the post of the trustee of Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple by falsely proclaiming as if he has handed over the possession and creating false evidence as if his servant by name Ganesan is only the tenant in respect of the premises.  On top of the same, he had also tried to be non-committal before this Court and seems to have watching the proceedings from outside the Court without engaging a counsel. As a matter of fact, the picture image of the signature made by the fifth respondent who has now filed the counter affidavit belatedly after the inspection report of the DLSA :

• Both the Court notice and private notice have been received

by the fifth respondent  as early as in November 2024 and he has received the notice and signed the acknowledgement card with a green ink and picture image is reproduced hereunder:

• Thus, after receiving the notice only because he wants to be

non- committal regarding the building and regarding his disqualification he did not file any counter affidavit in this case. Suddenly only after the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority had inspected the premises and filed the report, the counter affidavit is filed only on 2nd April 2025 one day after his objections to the report dated 1st April 2025. The evasive manner in which the objections are filed clearly adumbrates falsity. For example the objections states that there is no display of any name board on entrance of the shop and top of the shop. Normally such averments would not have been made if there was no board at all. What happened is that after the directions of this Court, he himself had removed the existing board on top of the shop hurriedly and according to the petitioner in person picture was as follows:

• That is why, the fifth respondent takes strong objections to

the statement made by the innocuous watchman Mr.Anandhan stating that shop belongs to TSR Constructions. While the objections in very many paragraphs takes exception to the findings that Ganesan is only an employee of the fifth respondent, no where in the objections or in the counter affidavit any statement is made that the petitioner does not have any connection with the said Ganesan or the said Ganesan is not an employee of the fifth respondent. When consistently the Assistant Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority who visited the spot categorically could see and peruse the occupation of the petitioner in respect of the said building, the petitioner is only trying to hide the pumpkin in a bowl of rice. There is absolute moral bankruptcy on the part of the petitioner who is trying to occupy the property of the Kattalai for his own residence and at the same time have also assumed the office of the Chairman of the board of the trustee of the temple. Thus, it can only demonstrate that the fifth respondent is absolutely unfit to be the trustee of the temple. I reject the very many objections that are raised including the statement of the fifth respondent as if the inspection report of the District Secretary is irresponsible.  The fifth respondent is eminently unfit to hold the office, being disqualified by law. Unable to occupy any building by paying market rent, usurping the temple property for a paltry Rs. 2,000/- and being in the occupation both residentially and commercially, shamelessly setting up persons and creating false receipts of rents, running away from the premises on inspection by keeping it under lock and key, with all this unfathomable illegalities, the fifth respondent would term the lawful inspection report of the District Legal Services Authority as irresponsible. There are overwhelming reports of the statutory authority as well as the report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority categorically holding that it is the fifth respondent, who is in occupation of the premises. The entire records which is being created as if the fifth respondent vacated and handed over the premises in the year 2013 is only a make believe affair and the parties have attempted to even create false records to be produced before this Court.

• When at the earliest statement Mr.Muruganantham states

before the Statutory Authority conducting an enquiry that the entire property is only with Sakthivel, now before this Court a contra stand is taken that only Ganesan is in occupation of the property. The Commissioner did not even exhibit little bit of care to the Temple and thought it appropriate to question as to how the Kalasanthi Kattalai gave the property to either Sakthivel or Ganesan. The Commissioner seems to turn his eye off the hard facts only to give a favourable order in respect of the fifth respondent. The findings of the Commissioner are absolutely perverse and are condemnable, the Commissioner being the in-charge of the temple endowments and its property, ought not to have let down his deputies namely the Joint Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner who have done their duty without fear or favour. Therefore, I answer the question that the fifth respondent is only in occupation having taken the property by a registered lease agreement, having unauthorizedly demolished heritage structure and put up his own structure and put up his own house and commercial properties and is enjoying the same till date for a paltry rent of Rs.2,000/-. As such, he is categorically and clearly disqualified to be a trustee of the temple much less the chairman of the board of the trustees of the temple. The Kalasanthi Arakattalai is a specific endowment attached to the temple. Therefore, the Section 26 (1-A) of the Act reads as follows:

“(1-A) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as, and for being, a trustee of a religious institution or endowment.- (a) if he is interested in a subsisting lease of any property of, or contract made with or any work being done for the religious institution or endowment.”

Thus, the fifth respondent is disqualified and he is only trying to usurp the post and cannot remain in office even for a moment.

48.Question No.3:

This Court is also the p are ns p atriae of the property of the Kattalai which is attached to the temple. The Kattalai and its hereditary trustees are not parties and therefore, definite findings cannot be given against them with reference to perjury. However, it is shocking to note that when there is a Civil Court decree to evict Sakthivel as early as in the year 2003 and when the execution petition was filed and it was pending, half-way through, why the execution petition was withdrawn and inspite of the report of the Assistant Commissioner, absolutely no proceeding is taken to secure the property. The entire 4,400 sq.ft of property has to be forthwith secured in favour of Kalasanthi Kattalai by evicting all the unlawful occupants and  the spaces have to be auctioned and leased out in the manner known to law by public auction. P r i m a facie there seems to be a criminal conspiracy in dividing the property into two while the execution petition was pending and thereafter, allowing the two different groups of people to occupy the property for so long. There seems to be falsification of records etc. The Joint Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai, shall take further proceedings under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to evict all the occupants including the fifth respondent in the manner known to law. The action of the then Assistant Commissioner namely M.Jothilakshmi is commendable and the appreciation of this Court shall be entered in her service records.  Similarly this Court also places the appreciation on record in respect of Mr.R.Sudharsan, the Joint Commissioner and this appreciation also be entered in his service records. Since the Kalasanthi Kattalai’s trustees are not before this Court, no positive directions are issued. However, the Joint Commissioner shall issue show cause notice to them and conduct an enquiry in this regard. If in the enquiry it is made out that there is a conspiracy in dividing the entire property into two right from the pendency of the execution proceedings and creation of records, then the Joint Commissioner shall lodge a complaint to the jurisdictional police upon the receipt of which, a case has to be registered and the offenders be prosecuted in accordance with law.

• In any event, the entire property shall be secured for the Kalasanthi Kattalai and the tenancy rights be determined by assessing the value of the property and fixing the appropriate rent and auctioning it in the manner known to law. The property worth crores and certainly Rs.2,000/- rent is a laughable proposition. The other major extent is still worse not even fetch a single rupee. Therefore, immediate steps to be taken so that the kattalai and through the same temple receive the income. The authority shall conduct a due enquiry and if any misconduct is made out on the part of the hereditary trustees, then action should also be taken in the manner known to law. In any event, the property should be secured not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.  This Writ Petition is allowed with the cost of Rs.25,000/-. The respondents 1 & 2 shall pay the said cost to the District Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order. Out of the cost amount deposited, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority will be entitled for reimbursement of a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the expenses incurred by her in conducting the inspection, travel, printing of photographs etc., and other expenses. The respondents 1 & 2 will be entitled to recover the cost from the fifth respondent.
• To sum up, the case of the respondents is disbelieved for the

following reasons:

• The petitioner even after the receipt of the notice

want to remain non committal and was a fence sitter  watching the proceedings and engaged the counsel and appeared in the matter only at the last moment after the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority inspected the premises;

• Even after filing of the counter affidavit, the

denial of the petitioner is only a bald denial. Though he denies that he is not residing in the said premises, no categorical averments is made in the counter affidavit that  after the year 2013 he was residing in a particular address other than the subject matter of property. Thus, the denial is only a bald denial. Similarly the relationship between Ganesan and himself is also again bald denial with no categorical averment that he has no

connection whatsoever with the said Ganesan;

• At the earliest point of time in the enquiry even the

trustees of Kalasanthi Kattalai did not make out a case as if the property was in the name of Ganesan but only projected a case

that the property is in custody of Sakthivel;

• The reports of the Assistant Commissioner, JointCommissioner and finally the Secretary, DLSA categorically point out that even as on date the fifth respondent is occupying

the said property both residential and commercial;

• There has been no answer whatsoever to the

positive and clinching evidence being the electricity connection

application in the year 2023;

• In view thereof, the Writ Petition No.32503 of 2024 is

allowed on the following terms;

1. The fifth respondent is declared as disqualified to

be a trustee of Arulmigu Arunalchaleeswarar Temple, Tiruvannamalai and forthwith he shall cease to be in the

administration of the temple in any manner whatsoever;

• The entire property belonging to Kalasanthi Kattalai in S.No.1396/1 admeasuring 4,400 sq.ft., shall be brought to the control of the Kalasanthi Kattalai by taking due proceedings under Sections 78 & 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and thereafter be auctioned by inviting tender by fixing proper rental value. Effective and expeditious steps to be taken for evicting all the unauthorised occupants including the fifth respondent in the

manner known to law;

• As stated above, the appreciation made by this Court in respect of the Assistant Commissioner/M.Jothilakshmi and the Joint Commissioner/R.Sudharshan shall be entered into their service records; This Court also places its appreciation on record for the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Tiruvannamalai, for the prompt inspection and a report with

much clarity and supporting documents.

• The Joint Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai, shall

issue show cause notice to the trustees of Kalasanthi Kattalai in respect of the misconduct committed by them with reference to leaving the Kalasanthi Kattalai property under the custody of the encroachers even after the Civil Court decree by clandestinely withdrawing the execution petition, leaving the portion of the property for the rent for a very very paltry sum of Rs.2,000/- and did not even objecting to the super structure being put up or regularizing the super structure, taking different stands in the enquiry and helping the fifth respondent to hide the fact that he is residing in the property as on date and pass final orders in respect

thereof in accordance with law;

• The detailed fact finding enquiry shall also be

conducted in this regard and if any criminal conspiracy is made out, with reference to withdrawing the execution petition and the subsequent action upto the date of production of rental receipt as if it is in the name of Ganesan, a complaint shall be lodged to the Jurisdictional Police. On receipt of the complaint, the

jurisdictional police shall register the case and investigate into the

same and the offenders be prosecuted in accordance with law;

• The respondents 1 & 2 shall deposit a cost of

Rs.25,000/- to the District Legal Service Authority,

Tiruvannamalai and out of the cost amount deposited, the learned Secretary who conducted the inspection will be entitled to reimbursement of a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the expenses

incurred by her in conducting the inspection.

1. W.P.No.11487 of 2025 :

• The prayer in this Writ Petition is that the revision petition

filed by them in R.P.No.363 of 2023 as against the order in MP.No.70 of 2021 dated 15.03.2023 be directed to be disposed of.

• By the said order against which the revision is filed, the

petitioners were ordered to be evicted from the premises and eviction was also carried on and the house that was built by them was demolished.

• The petitioners contend that one T.M. Loganathan is the Managing Trustee of Ammani Amman  Madam. He is the successful decree holder in OS.No.347 of 1987, and a decree was passed by this Court. The trustee had leased out a portion of the trust property through a registered lease deed bearing Doc.No.6464 of 2017 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruvannamalai, Joint-II. Consequently, the petitioners have constructed their house and are residing there.
• As a matter of fact, in W.A.No.1014 of 2023, this Court has

confirmed that the property belongs to the trust. Meanwhile, due to political vendetta, the second respondent, namely Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, initiated proceedings under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, fraudulently and unlawfully asserting baseless ownership over the scheduled property. The case was posted for appearance on 29.04.2022 and was further adjourned on 04.05.2022, with the next hearing scheduled for 26.05.2022. However, suddenly, the order dated 15.03.2023 was passed, leading to eviction. It is noted that the petitioners were recorded as exparte on 04.05.2022, which is incorrect, as the matter was merely adjourned to 26.05.2022. The person who conducted the proceedings, namely Kumaresan, was inimically disposed towards the petitioner, and by violating all principles of natural justice and the rule of law, he passed the order while deliberately failing to serve any notice, resulting in the petitioners’ dispossession. Therefore, the petitioners have also filed a revision petition before the first respondent, requesting that the revision be disposed of.

• The writ petition is resisted by the respondents. They assert

that the entire property was originally used by one Ammani Ammal, who built the Rajagopuram of the Sri Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. She utilized the property for storing construction materials for the Rajagopuram. Following that, a choultry building was constructed, and the remaining areas initially remained vacant land. Meanwhile, there has been several litigations concerning the Ammani Ammal Trust.

• It is their contention that the endowment is also linked to Sri Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple. The land in question is located in

S.No.1337 and measures 23,800 sq. ft. Nonetheless, the aforementioned T.M.Loganathan, through whom the petitioner claims a right, asserted rights as if the said Ammani Ammal had entrusted the administration of the trust to the ancestors of T.M.Loganathan, and thereafter, T.M.Loganathan and others inherited the right of trusteeship. This case was explicitly rejected by the Division Bench of this Court through a judgment and decree, which stated that the trust should be administered either by the Executive Officer of Sri Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple or merged with a similar trust having analogous objectives. To bypass the said judgment, T.M. Loganathan, along with the petitioners and others, formed a new trust named Bangalore T.A.Vaiyapuri Chettiar, Ammani Amman Madam Trust on 19.10.2011, and registered the trust deed as Doc. No.1242 of 2011. The first petitioner, T.S. Sankar, is also one of the trustees; the trustees claim to protect the Ammani Amman Madam and to further other charitable purposes.

• Even before that, the first petitioner obtained the property

entrusted to him through a power of attorney in his favour. Subsequently, as the trustee of the same trust, the first petitioner executed a lease deed in favor of his wife and took possession of the property. This matter was examined by this Court in W.P.No.9361 of 2023 by the order dated 29.03.2023. This Court upheld to takeover of possession concerning the entire property of the mutt. If there is any contrary title, it granted the newly formed trust the liberty to file a revision before the appropriate authority. In fact, the order was appealed in Writ Appeal No.1014 of 2023, where the Division Bench of this Court (of which I am also a party) affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge but modified the findings to state that the property is not a temple property and held that it belongs to the trust. Taking advantage of this, the petitioner herein is now posting signs on the property and attempting to encroach once again, despite already initiated contempt proceedings. Additionally, the first petitioner, who is also a trustee of the said trust that is currently occupied illegally, seeks a disposal of the revision and a reversal of the eviction order.

Therefore, the Writ Petition should be dismissed by this Court.

• Heard,          Mr.T.S.Sankar,                    the           petitioner-in-person.

Mr. T.S.Sankar, appearing in the case, would take this Court through the rental agreement deed. He would submit that the property was duly leased out, only because the income of the trust was found to be lacking.  Further, by displaying a video, the petitioner-in-person would demonstrate how a heritage structure, built of brick over 100 years ago, was unscrupulously demolished by the respondents. During this demolition, the petitioner’s house, which had also been constructed, was likewise demolished. Taking this Court through various dates and the orders that were passed, the petitioners would submit that it can be seen that the authorities, without affording due opportunity, suddenly passed the order of eviction, in violation of all the rules. Without even putting the petitioners on notice, they directly carried out the eviction, all in violation of the rules of inquiry and the specific provisions relating to the eviction of the premises.

• The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Basudev Dutta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.^[1]. He would submit that the reasons are the heart of the order and that violation of principles of natural justice would render the very action illegal. Therefore, he would argue that the eviction is liable to be set aside and the petitioners ought to be restored to possession. The learned counsel would refer to the other records to demonstrate how he was involved in various public-spirited actions and agitations, and only because the particular officer was inimically disposed toward him especially when the petitioners are raising the issues in the connected Writ Petition he was targeted, and his residential house was high-handedly demolished. Therefore, justice must be rendered to him.

• I have considered the rival submissions that are made and

perused the material records of the case.

• The matter is no longer res inte gr a concerning the title of the

property. The property belongs to Ammani Amman Madam. In fact, the petitioners claim title through T.M. Loganathan and others. The case of T.M. Loganathan itself in A.S. No. 347 of 1987 is that Ammani Amman left the trust to be managed by their ancestors. Their case is outlined in paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the judgment in the appeal suit, which is provided hereunder for ready reference:

“2.   The  appellants  filed   the   suit   for declaration  that  their family should be in management of the Schedule mentioned properties as trustees and for possession.  According  to  them,  there was originally a Choultry known as  Bangalore T.A.  Vaiyapuri Chettiar and

Ammani Ammal  Choultry. It  was  founded  by  one Ammani  Ammal  who  constructed the northern Gopuram of the Temple which was known as Ammani Ammal Gopuram.  At the time of construction the building  now known as  Madam  was used for storing the construction materials for the Gopuram.   Later  when  the  Gopuram was  completed  this building  was  left  by  the  said Ammani Ammal for providing shelter for pilgrims.  In 1764, Ammani  Ammal  entrusted  the management of the

Choultry to the appellants’ predecessors.

3. The  genealogical  tree  appended  to the         plaint would show the relationship.  T.A.  Vijayapuri Chettiar had four sons, Ponnusami Chettiar  (P),

Rathinavelu  Chettiar (R), Vajravel  Chettiar  (V)  and Manickavel Chettiar (M).  P  died issueless.  R died leaving two  sons  who  are  dead  and  their wives are  appellants 1  and  2.   V had two sons.  His branch is not represented in the suit.  M had three sons,  one of whom  is  dead and the other two are appellants 3 and 4.  M  executed a Will on  0  8-08-1966.    The  management  of  the Choultry is mentioned in the said Will.  There is reference to a watchman,  who  must be paid salary regularly.  The Will had been acted upon.  R also executed a Will on 16-091962.   Here too  is  a  reference  to  Ammani  Ammal Choultry  and to the watchman.  The photostat copies of the two  Wills  have  been produced.   In  1890,  the grandfather  of R and M received a letter from  the SubCollector,  South  Arcot  regarding  this Madam.   A photostat  copy  of the said communication is also  filed.  In 1939, the first respondent’s father  Perumal  wrote to  R regarding the Municipal Tax etc., and this letter would show that the first respondent’s  father  had  no independent right in respect of the building, but was only a watchman.  On 25-10-19   44,  a  notice  was  issued  by the  Municipality, Tiruvannamalai complaining of  some health  hazard.   R  had written a reply in his own handwriting.  The Town Field Survey Register would show that the property is referred to as Ammani Ammal Madam. After the death of R and M, their heirs were not evincing  much  interest  in  the  management of the Choultry. Taking advantage of the same, the first respondent set  up  an  independent claim  in  respect  of the suit property.  So the suit was filed. “

63. Thereafter, a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court considered

the case of the said trustees, who claimed to be the trustees of Ammani Amman Madam. Their case was rejected outright and that it was found that they cannot claim any inheritable right in respect of the said trust. The said findings were recorded in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment and it was concluded that the trust be administered through the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam or by the trustees of any other charitable trust and the activities being carried on further. The relevant portion of the decree and judgment is extracted hereunder:

“11(f) In the above said paragraphs, it has already been found that there is a trust and therefore, the above averments are untenable. The respondent and his father knew exactly who Rathinavel Chettiar was and that he is Vaiyapuri Chettiar’s descendant entitle to manage the Ammani Amman Madam. Only by Ex.A25 dated 23.09.1986 the appellants

were put on notice of the intention of the respondent to claim the property for himself. The suit has been filed in 1983 and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent had perfected

his title by adverse possession.

1. For all these reasons,, the judgment of the Trial Court is set aside. A.S.No.347 of 1987 is allowed and the suit

is decreed as prayed for. No costs.

1. In view of the wishes of the testator in Ex.A1 and the obvious practical difficulties faced by the appellants to manage the trust and to protect it from persons like the respondents who might grab it for personal use, a direction is given to the appellants to co-ordinate with the Executive Officer of the Tiruvannamalai Devasthanam so that, the Devasthanam authorities or any other charitable trust like the charities mentioned in Ex.A1 are made trustees along with the family of the appellants.”
   1. Thus, following this, it was high-handed on the part of T.M.Loganathan and the first petitioner, among others, to register a trust deed again as if they had the right to administer the Ammani Amman Madam. In fact, the newly formed trust deed, dated 19.10.2011, was registered as document No. 1242 of 2011 and states the following aims and objectives, among others.
   1. Therefore, this trust has no authority to self-proclaim such a

right or claim possession or enjoyment of the property. This Court is not concerned with whether the respondents are justified in demolishing the heritage structure that was the existing choultry. In any event, it is evident that five individuals, lacking any right or title, joined together and attempted to form a new trust to usurp the property. Moreover, this Court had categorically determined that they do not possess any such rights in WP.No.9361 of 2023,

and this Court, speaking through HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, clearly stated the following, with paragraphs 17 to 19 quoted for ready reference.

“17. As far as the eviction proceedings are concerned, Section 78 of the HR & CE Act is unambiguous, if the

authorities has ‘reason to believe’ that the subject property is

the Temple property, they are empowered to invoke the

powers.

1. In the present case, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter, an eviction order was passed. The competent authorities had already taken possession of the property on 15.03.2023 and demolished the buildings, which all are in a dilapidated condition, posing danger to the people moving

nearby the temple area.

1. This being the factum, if the petitioner/Trust claims any right of title or ownership over the property, they are at liberty to approach the Revisional Authority under Section 21 of the HR & CE Act or the Civil Court as the case may be for establishing their rights.”
2. When the matter was carried to the Division Bench, the Division Bench affirmed the order; however, it only rendered a finding that the property would not be Temple property but would belong to the trust. Paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Division Bench(of which I am one of the party) is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“6. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, the order of eviction can be passed against en encroacher or a person in unauthorised occupation. Since it is a religious institution, the order has been passed. It appears that error has cropped in while passing the order under Section 78 that the same is to be handed over to the Temple. In fact, the same is required to be handed over to the Trust. The order under Section 78 to the effect that it is to be handed over to the Temple requires to be modified to the extent that it is to be handed over to the Trust

and the conclusion that the said property belongs to the Temple cannot be sustained. It would belong to the trust. If the balance land is in possession of a third party encroacher, action can be taken under Section 78 against him also.”

• Therefore, the orders of the learned Single and Division Benches must be read in tandem with the judgment and decree in A.S.No.347 of 1987. Consequently, the property will solely belong to the original Ammani Amman Madam trust, not the trust through which the first petitioner and others are newly registered and claiming tenancy. Since eviction has already been carried out and the trustees have been directed by the learned Single Judge to establish their rights by filing a revision before the authorities or by initiating a Civil Suit, attempting to re-enter the property without fulfilling these requirements amounts to a gross abuse of the legal process. The entire extent of 25,247 sq.ft. belongs to Ammani Amman Madam. The said Madam, i.e.,the trust is a specific endowment that will be attached to the Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple. The Division Bench has provided two options by considering the prevailing position therein.
• Firstly, it was observed that the trust can be administered by

appointing the Executive Officer of the temple as the trustee. Secondly, through another trust with similar aims. The affairs of several other trusts also remain questionable as of now. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the order of the Division Bench would be that the original trust shall now be administered through the Executive Officer of the temple. The original purpose of the trust was only to build a choultry. Therefore, the entire area of 25,247 sq.ft. shall only be used for the purpose of facilitating the devotees of the temple. Such rooms/dormitories can only be for the numerous devotees who come to the temple. A multi-storied building with parking and residential facilities for the devotees can be put up and can be used for this purpose alone. The residential rooms/cloakrooms, along with general halls/dormitories for devotees to rest or stay overnight, can be created. This is the original purpose of the trust as stated by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The entire property must now be secured and shall be managed by the Executive Officer of Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple in the role of administering the Ammani Amman Madam Trust. If the trust does not have its own funds, the HR & CE

Department, while allocating funds, shall ensure that the property is secured and no commercial construction of any kind can take place, except for facilities for devotees, which is the original objective of the trust. It can only be for choultry purposes, specifically for rooms for the stay of devotees/ cloakrooms or dormitories for devotees and such as facilities such as toilets, baths etc. Devotees can be charged minimal amounts to maintain the purpose of the trust. Thus, it can be observed that initially the petitioner obtained a power of attorney from one of the trustees, which is not in accordance with the judgment and decree in A.S.No 347 of 1987.

• Secondly, putting up of a residential house for the purpose of

the petitioners is against the very object of the trust. The property situates just opposite to the temple and it was dedicated by the pious souls for the benefit of the devotees and that land cannot be grabbed for residential or commercial purposes that was again illegal.

• Third illegality is the registration of the Bangalore T.A.Chettiyar Ammani Amman Madam Trust. Only to over reach the decree and judgment of the Court such a trust was registered. The petitioner has also joined as a trustee in the said trust. Finally, when the petitioner is a trustee under the said trust, he ought not to have taken on lease in the name of his own wife and put up his house. Therefore, the petitioner can only blame himself for all his actions riddled with conflict of interest, carrying out a purpose other than the pious object of the choultry and acting high-handedly in attempting to wrest the property of the Madam.
• In view of the high handed action now that is complained of

even the innocuous prayer to dispose of the revision cannot be granted by this Court. This Court is also p are ns p atriae to take care of the valuable property of the endowment, which is attached to the temple. It has to be safeguarded to the original trust and can be used only for the benefit of devotees not for the benefit of any private individuals. No commercial construction can be put up and can be given to any person. If at all any construction can be put up, the same can only be like choultry/staying/parking facilities for the devotees of the temple alone.

• In the result, WP.No.11487 of 2025 is disposed of with the

following terms;

• The prayer of the petitioners to dispose of the

revision made in R.P.No.363 of 2023 shall stand negatived;

• The petitioners cannot in any manner interfere

with the action of the Trustee of Ammani Amman Madam trust in securing the possession of the property in Survey No.1377 admeasuring a total extent of 25,247 sq.ft. at No.9, Ammani

Ammal Gopuram Street, Tiruvannamalai;

• The first and second respondents are directed to

include in their department budget any sum towards putting up of super structure only for the benefit of devotees including parking facilities, cloak rooms, dormitories but no other commercial purposes. Such scheme can be framed for proper upkeep of the entire premises and for collecting minimum rent from the devotees and at least 50% of the portion being made available for free of charges/nominal for the poor devotees. Even rest of the

portion, minimal charges can be levied;

• The first petitioner being the trustee of the said

proclaimed trust cannot in any manner interfere with the Executive Officer immediately safeguarding the possession of the property. The banners if any of the private  persons kept in the said property be removed and the entire property be in the control of the Executive Officer in the capacity of Ammani

Amman Madam;

• The Commissioner, shall nominate trustees (who are properly qualified) to act as trustees along with the Executive Officer of the Temple to manage the said Ammani Ammal

Madam, as per the procedure;

• The jurisdictional Police including the Superintendent of Police Tiruvammalai shall give due protection for maintianing the said lands with the Madam, as administrered by the Executive Officer of the Temple. Due safeguards be made

not to allow any other persons to encroach the property.

• Even if any other portion of the property

remains in encroachment of any third party, forthwith steps shall be taken under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act to secure those

portions also;

• No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

30.04.2025

Neutral Citation: Yes dna

To

1.The Chief Additional Secretary,    Government of Tamilnadu,    Secretariat, Fort St.George,    Chennai.

2.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Board,

119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,    Thousand Lights, Nungambakkam,    Chennai  – 600 034.

3.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer,    Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Temple,    Thiruvannamalai.

4.The Zonal Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE),    Thiruvannamalai.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

dna

W.P.Nos. 32503/2024 & 11487/2025 and W.M.P.Nos. 35321/2024 & 12972/2025

30.04.2025

[1] (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3616)

Share this:

•  Press This
•  X
•  Facebook

Customize buttons

Loading…

Edit”D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY judge”

Recent Posts

• JUSTICE BATTU DEVANANDApril 28, 2025
• God will forgive me NavjMarch 11, 2025
• Judge Mohammed Shaffiq orderMarch 11, 2025
• Pmla case mhc order noticeMarch 11, 2025
• Sai Dharshan K S, 2nd Year Law Student at OP Jindal Global Law School.November 19, 2024

Text Widget

This is a text widget. The Text Widget allows you to add text or HTML to your sidebar. You can use a text widget to display text, links, images, HTML, or a combination of these. Edit them in the Widget section of the Customizer.

Search for:Search

• Home
• About
• Contact

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Google+
• GitHub
• WordPress.com

sekarreporter.com 9445430817 Blog at WordPress.com.

• • Edit

 

• • Stats

 

Upgrade your plan to remove the banner and unlock more features, from ₹200/month

Upgrade