Supreme Court directs adherence to Tamil Nadu Religious Act for Temple Land Evictions: S. Kumar vs. The Commissioner (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 08, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 331

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can temple authorities evict shopkeepers from temple premises without following the legal procedures? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning the rights of small business owners operating within temple lands in Tamil Nadu. The core issue revolved around whether the State and Temple Management could bypass the established legal framework for eviction as laid down in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The appellants in this case were individuals who operated small businesses, selling various items from shops located within the premises of several temples across Tamil Nadu. These individuals claimed to have been conducting their businesses either with a license or with the permission of the Temple Authorities. They asserted that they were in lawful possession of their respective shop spaces and therefore could not be dispossessed without due process.

The State Authorities and Temple Management issued notices dated 14/16.02.2018 threatening the appellants with dispossession from their shops. Aggrieved by these notices, the appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notices and a prohibitory writ restraining the authorities from evicting them.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants on 04.06.2018. Subsequently, the appellants filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Division Bench also dismissed the appeals, upholding the order of the Single Judge. This led to the appellants filing special leave petitions before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court noted that the issue was governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Specifically, Chapter VII of the Act, 1959, which deals with encroachments on land belonging to religious institutions, was deemed relevant.

The Court highlighted the following sections:

• Section 77 of the Act, 1959: Deals with the prohibition of transfer of lands appurtenant to or adjoining religious institutions, except in special cases.
• Section 78 of the Act, 1959: Addresses encroachments by individuals on land or buildings belonging to charitable or religious institutions and the eviction of such encroachers.
• Section 79 of the Act, 1959: Specifies the mode of eviction if an encroachment is not removed as directed by the Joint Commissioner.
• Section 79-A of the Act, 1959: Deals with encroachments by groups of persons on land belonging to charitable or religious institutions and their eviction.
• Section 79-B of the Act, 1959: Specifies the penalty for offenses related to encroachment.
• Section 79-C of the Act, 1959: Deals with the recovery of moneys due to religious institutions as arrears of land revenue.
• Section 80 of the Act, 1959: Addresses the eviction of lessees, licensees, or mortgagees with possession in certain cases.
• Section 81 of the Act, 1959: Provides for an appeal against orders of the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 80.
• Section 82 of the Act, 1959: Provides for payment of Compensation.
• Section 83 of the Act, 1959: Deals with the constitution of Tribunal.
• Section 84 of the Act, 1959: Deals with suits against the award.
• Section 85 of the Act, 1959: Provides for protection of action taken under Chapter VII of the Act, 1959.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they were in lawful possession of their shops, either as licensees or with the permission of the Temple Authorities. They contended that they could not be dispossessed without due process of law, which should include the procedures laid out in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. They argued that the notices issued by the respondents were illegal and should be quashed.

The respondents argued that they were entitled to take action to protect the temple lands and evict unauthorized occupants. However, the respondents did not demonstrate that they followed the procedure as laid down in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The short question which arose for consideration in this bunch of appeals was:

1. Whether the High Court (Single Judge – Writ Court and the Division Bench) was justified in dismissing the appellants’ writ petitions and intra court appeals.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Court specifically referred to Chapter VII of the Act, which deals with encroachments on land belonging to religious institutions, and the various sections within this chapter that outline the procedures for eviction.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. The Court held that the respondents (State Authorities and Temple Management) did not follow the due process of law as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, while issuing notices for dispossession of the appellants. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to take recourse to the remedies provided under the Act against the appellants individually. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the claims raised by the appellants.

The Court did not discuss any authorities in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the respondents failed to adhere to the procedures laid down in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Court emphasized that the rule of law must be followed, and any action taken by the authorities must be in accordance with the prescribed legal framework. The Court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that the respondents followed the correct legal procedures to protect the rights of the appellants.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that even if the respondents had a valid claim to evict the appellants, they were still bound to follow the procedure established by law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case, but rather focused on the procedural lapse on the part of the respondents.

The Supreme Court observed, “It is not in dispute that the respondents did not resort to the remedies provided to them under the Act against any of the appellants.” This highlights the Court’s emphasis on the procedural requirements of the law.

The Court further stated, “In other words, it is not in dispute that the action taken by the respondents, which was impugned by the appellants in the writ petitions before the High Court, was not taken under the Act, 1959.” This shows that the court was concerned with the fact that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Act.

The Court concluded by saying, “The respondents will, therefore, be at liberty to proceed in the matter in question against the appellants individually strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court.” This indicates that the court did not make any observations on the merits of the case.

Key Takeaways

• Temple authorities and state agencies must adhere to the procedures outlined in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, when evicting individuals from temple lands.
• Due process of law is paramount, and authorities cannot bypass legal procedures, even when dealing with encroachments.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of following the prescribed legal framework to protect the rights of all parties involved.
• The Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the case, but focused on the procedural lapses of the respondents.

Directions

The Supreme Court granted liberty to the respondents to take recourse to the remedies provided under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, against the appellants individually.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when dealing with encroachments on temple lands, the authorities must strictly adhere to the procedures outlined in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. This judgment reinforces the principle that due process of law must be followed in all such cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it clarifies that the authorities must strictly adhere to the procedures outlined in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Kumar vs. The Commissioner & Ors. underscores the importance of following due process of law when dealing with the eviction of individuals from temple lands. The Court held that the State Authorities and Temple Management must adhere to the procedures outlined in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The judgment ensures that the rights of individuals are protected and that authorities cannot bypass established legal frameworks.