Sri Semathamman Koil Charitable Trust. Vs. the Secretary to Government and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/928086
SubjectConstitution
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnJul-25-2012
Case NumberWrit Petition No.18963 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
JudgeR.SUDHAKAR, J.
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 226
AppellantSri Semathamman Koil Charitable Trust
RespondentThe Secretary to Government and ors.
Appellant AdvocateMr.R.Thamodaran, Adv
Respondent AdvocateMr.R.Govindasamy, Adv.
Excerpt:
[r.sudhakar, j.] constitution of india - articles 226 -- by consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal. this writ petition is sequel to earlier writ petition no.7390 of 2012 filed by the very same petitioner. consequentially connected miscellaneous petition is closed. present writ petition is filed challenging the g.o.ms.no.34, planning, development and special initiative (s.i) department dated 02.02.2011.writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent dated 2.2.2011 and made in his g.o.ms.no.34, planning, development and special initiatives (s.1) department and quash the same.o r d e r1. this writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent dated 2.2.2011 and made in his g.o.ms.no.34, planning, development and special initiatives (s.1) department and quash the same.2. mr.r.govindasamy, learned additional government pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and mr.v.ramajagadeesan, learned counsel takes notice for the third respondent. by consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. this writ petition is sequel to earlier writ petition no.7390 of 2012 filed by the very same petitioner. the order dated 28.3.2012 passed in w.p.no.7390 of 2012 by this court reads as follows:-"petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents in any manner disturbing the possession of the temple land held by the general public of koyambedu village that is the land comprised in survey no.158/2 where sri semathamman temple is situate.2. learned counsel appearing for the chennai metro rail ltd., has submitted that the land referred to in the writ petition belongs to the government, which is a poromboke land and hence, by g.o.ms.no.34, planning, development and special initiative (s.i) department dated 02.02.2011, c.m.r.l. was permitted to enter upon the land with immediate effect.3. in view of the above stated position, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition for a mandamus and the petitioner has to challenge the said proceedings in a manner known to law. therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings if it is so advised. consequentially connected miscellaneous petition is closed. there shall be no orders as to the costs."4. present writ petition is filed challenging the g.o.ms.no.34, planning, development and special initiative (s.i) department dated 02.02.2011.5. on going through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the documents filed in the typedset of papers, the petitioner has not produced any revenue documents to show that the land in question, namely, survey no.158 part, t.s.no.1, block no.40, koyambedu village belongs to the petitioner temple other than poramboke land. whereas in the g.o.ms.no.34 planning, development and special initiative (s.i) department dated 02.02.2011, it has been clearly stated that an extent of 3245 square meters of land is vacant sarkar poramboke (kovil) land coming under egmore-nungambakkam taluk, koyambedu village. it is, therefore, clear that the land in question is a poramboke land, where it could be possible that a temple was constructed. apparently, the land does is not belong to any particular individual and the land as per record clearly is government sarkar poromboke land. therefore, there is no question of the petitioner having any right over the property to object to the user of the same by the third respondent, consequent to transfer of land under the impugned g.o.6. thiru ramajagadeesan states that possession has already been taken over and the writ petition is totally misconceived.7. the plea of the counsel for the third respondent is accepted in the absence of material record to substantiate any claim over the said land by the petitioner, the writ petition is misconceived.8. the writ petition filed by the so-called managing trustee of the trust formed in the year 2003, has no merit.9. in view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Judgment:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent dated 2.2.2011 and made in his G.O.Ms.No.34, Planning, Development and Special Initiatives (S.1) Department and quash the same.

O R D E R

1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent dated 2.2.2011 and made in his G.O.Ms.No.34, Planning, Development and Special Initiatives (S.1) Department and quash the same.

2. Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.Ramajagadeesan, learned counsel takes notice for the third respondent. By consent the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

3. This writ petition is sequel to earlier Writ Petition No.7390 of 2012 filed by the very same petitioner. The order dated 28.3.2012 passed in W.P.No.7390 of 2012 by this Court reads as follows:-

"Petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents in any manner disturbing the possession of the temple land held by the general public of Koyambedu Village that is the land comprised in Survey No.158/2 where Sri Semathamman Temple is situate.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., has submitted that the land referred to in the writ petition belongs to the Government, which is a poromboke land and hence, by G.O.Ms.No.34, Planning, Development and Special Initiative (S.I) Department dated 02.02.2011, C.M.R.L. was permitted to enter upon the land with immediate effect.

3. In view of the above stated position, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition for a mandamus and the petitioner has to challenge the said proceedings in a manner known to law. Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings if it is so advised. Consequentially connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs."

4. Present writ petition is filed challenging the G.O.Ms.No.34, Planning, Development and Special Initiative (S.I) Department dated 02.02.2011.

5. On going through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the documents filed in the typedset of papers, the petitioner has not produced any revenue documents to show that the land in question, namely, Survey No.158 part, T.S.No.1, Block No.40, Koyambedu Village belongs to the petitioner temple other than poramboke land. Whereas in the G.O.Ms.No.34 Planning, Development and Special Initiative (S.I) Department dated 02.02.2011, it has been clearly stated that an extent of 3245 square meters of land is vacant sarkar poramboke (kovil) land coming under Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Koyambedu Village. It is, therefore, clear that the land in question is a poramboke land, where it could be possible that a temple was constructed. Apparently, the land does is not belong to any particular individual and the land as per record clearly is Government Sarkar poromboke land. Therefore, there is no question of the petitioner having any right over the property to object to the user of the same by the third respondent, consequent to transfer of land under the impugned G.O.

6. Thiru Ramajagadeesan states that possession has already been taken over and the writ petition is totally misconceived.

7. The plea of the counsel for the third respondent is accepted in the absence of material record to substantiate any claim over the said land by the petitioner, the writ petition is misconceived.

8. The writ petition filed by the so-called Managing Trustee of the trust formed in the year 2003, has no merit.

9. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.