Punish callous officials in temple land grab cases, directs court

Dismissing a plea moved by A Ponmani staking lease rights for a temple property in the city, which was reportedly transferred to her by the original lessee, Justice S M Subramaniam said, “The present case is one such case where the parties were able to prolong and protract the litigations and enjoyed the prime properties situated within the Chennai city for many years and thereby deprived the temple to utilise the mean profits from and out of the suit schedule property for its welfare and benefit.”

As per the case, the original suit was instituted on behalf of the Arulmigu Dharmaraja Thirukoil in Kilpauk regarding the 2,202-sq ft land at Halls Road, Kilpauk that belonged to it. It was originally leased out 35 years ago to SA Appadurai Nadar. Appadurai was paying land rent only as he had set up a roofed shed on the leasedtemple land.

Appadurai died and consequently, his legal heirs were neither recognised as tenants nor did they apply to HR&CE for name transfer. Now, the appellant (Ponmani) claimed to be the purchaser of the superstructure with leasehold rights of the land from the legal heirs through a sale deed. The deed was reportedly executed without the knowledgeof the temple.

While Ponmani had sought the temple to recognise her as tenant, the latter contended that Ponmani was only an assignee purchaser without tenancy rights and hence she was a rank trespasser. The trial court, which heard the case, upheld the temple’s contention leading to the present appeal by Ponmani.

Justice Subramaniam, while dismissing the plea, held thus: “This court is of the considered opinion that these kinds of transactions are being done across the State, with an idea to grab the temple properties.” “The courts cannot encourage such transactions since the authorities competent under the provisions of the Act, are empowered to exercise the powers in the manner known to statutes and not otherwise. Any such illegal transactions or conferment of any leasehold right or tenancy right, if it is found illegal or in violation of the provisions under the HR&CE Act, such contracts or agreements are to be declared as null and void and the same cannot be construed as a valid contract or agreement under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act,” the judge added.

“When the (HR&CE) Act contemplates that extension of lease or grant of it beyond the period of five years is impermissible and the authorities are not initiating any actions, then they must be held accountable and answerable for all such lapses and dereliction of duty ornegligence,” the judge further said.