(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Huluvadi G Ramesh, J) Heard Mr.V.P.K.Gowtham, learned counsel appearing for the appellant , Mr.Maharaja, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and V.M.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
2.According to the appellant, the appellant and the 5th respondent are in occupation of the land measuring about 0.55 cents, in S.No.332/1, Palladam Taluk, belongs to the A/m. Ponkaliamman Temple, Palladam, for a very long time and put up a temporary shed of 1000 sq. ft. The appellant and the 5th respondent made a representation on 04.09.2015, to the respondents for fixing the fair rent for the 0.55 cents of land. Whereas, the 4th respondent sent a notice dated 07.09.2015, for handing over possession of the said land or otherwise he would initiate proceedings under Section 78 and 79 of the H.R. & C.E., for removing the encroachment. The appellant had also sent representations dated 28.12.2015, 11.02.2016 to the respondents which are pending consideration by the respondents 1, 2 and 4. While so, without disposing her representations and without following the due process of law, the 4th respondent had threatened the appellant and the 5th respondent that he would fence the land on any day. In such circumstances, the appellant has sought for a mandamus against the respondents 1 to 4 to fix fair rent for the temple land measuring 0.55 cents in S.No.332/1, Palladam Taluk and for consequential relief to forbear the respondents 1 to 4 from evicting her from the temple land belonging to A/m.Ponkaliamman Temple, Palladam Taluk, without following the due process of law.
3.The learned single Judge on the basis of the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader stating that they proposed to construct Kalyanamandapam and that the appellant herein is enjoying only an extent of less than 1000 sq. ft., has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant herein in accordance with law within a period of one month and till such time no coercive steps shall be taken in so far as the limited space as enjoyed by the appellant herein as on the date of order. Hence, the present appeal.
4.The grievance of the appellant is that even in the notice for eviction that was sent by the 4th respondent the extent of the land was mentioned as 0.55 cents and in the due course the fourth respondent has filed his counter stating that only 1100 sq. ft. of land alone is in possession of the appellant and the remaining lands out of 0.55 was already taken by the temple. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition directing the authority concerned to consider the representation of the appellant dated 28.12.2016 on merits and in accordance with law with respect to the limited space enjoyed by the appellant i.e. 1100 sq. ft. without adverting to the fact that the representations were made by the appellant for the 0.55 cents of land and not for 1100 sq. ft. of the land. As such the appellant has been isolated and due process of law as has not been followed.
5.Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we direct the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant dated 28.12.2016 on merits and pass orders in accordance with law, as per the procedures envisaged under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos. 7047 and 7048 of 2017 are closed.