Temple lands can be utilised only for the beneficial purposes of the temple: Madras High Court [Read Judgment]

Responding to grievances raised by devotees with respect of the alienation temple land concerning two temples in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court on Wednesday emphasised that Temple land can be utilised only for the beneficial purposes of the temple ( S Sridhar and ors v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors ) .

. Justice R Mahadevan ruled,

. "... temple poramboke lands are meant only for occupations connected with festivals or religious ceremonies and the same can be utilised only for the beneficial purposes of the temple..." Madras High Court . Pertinently, Rule 13 of the Standing Order No. 26 of the Revenue Board , which deals with Temple Poramboke , states that purely temporary occupations connected with festivals or religious ceremonies are allowed and all other occupations should be treated as encroachments.

. Concessions can only be granted with the consent of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE Department). As also stated in the Judgment,

. "... the temple lands are to be used only for the beneficial interests of the Temple, since it has acquired the right of perpetual possession and enjoyment of the same, subject to the provision of Rule 13 of the Revenue Standing Order No.26 and with the consent of HR&CE Dept." . The judgment explains further that even if temple land is temporarily transferred for any other purpose, it would only be to augument the Temple's revenue, after obtained the HR&CE Department's approval.

. "... the temple poramboke land cannot be permanently transferred, but only rights to occupy the excess land can be granted to others to augment the revenue for the temple. Before the lands are let out, the same must be sub-divided, transferred to assessed waste and assigned to the temple on free of cost and patta must be granted in its name so as to enable it to collect rents. Before such assignment is sought, the consent from the HR&CE Dept. must be obtained", reads the judgment. . Justice Mahadevan has further summarised:

. The temples are entitled to the rights of possession and enjoyment in respect of the respective disputed lands, subject to the control and administration of the HR&CE Department. Needless to say that no trustee / private individual shall claim right over the disputed lands possessed and enjoyed by the temples in any manner whatsoever.

The right and title over the disputed lands vest with the Government. However, the Government shall not utilise/ alienate / assign / transfer the same and construct permanent structures therein for the purposes other than the beneficial interests of the temple as indicated in Rule 13 of the Revenue Standing Order No.26 and the provisions of the HR&CE Act.

The temples under the administration and control of the HR&CE Department are entitled to all the prescriptive rights not only because of their long possession, but also in view of Rule 13 of the Revenue Standing Order No.26 and the provisions of HR&CE Act.

. A tale of two Temples . The case at hand involved the Sakthi Mathamman Temple , Neelankarai and the Arulmighu Kottai Mariamman Thirukoil, Omalur, Salem.

. The State's Fisheries Department had acted to develop a modern fish market, fish eatery and office building on some of the land belonging to the Sakthi Mathamman Temple, disregarding the objections made by devotees. This led the filing of writ petitions challenging the move before the Madras High Court.

. The petitioners sought directions to prevent the State authorities from carrying out construction activities on Temple land and to prevent the authorities from interfering with the rights of worship including the conduct of religious festivals in temple lands

. Similarly, writ petitions were filed against the transfer of some land belonging to the Arulmighu Kottai Mariamman Thirukoil to the Regional Transport Department, which was revealed through an RTI query. Without following due procedure, some of the temple's land was also stated to have been taken over by the Highways Department to construct a bridge.

. Before delving into the dispute, the Court first dismissed a challenge to the Court's jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It held,

. "What is in “lis” is the disturbance to the possessory and enjoyment rights over the same. Though the facts are not disputed by any of the parties, the authority of the Government to transfer the lands dedicated to the temples is questioned in the present writ petitions. Thus, the dispute raised herein would not fall within the ambit of a Civil Court. Hence, this Court holds that the writ petitions are maintainable."

. Court's verdict . The Court ultimately allowed both sets of writ petitions, finding that the transfers had been made in violation of Rule 13 under Standing Order No. 26 of the Revenue Board.

. " Commissioner, HR&CE Dept. had neither been consulted nor involved during the decision making process of such transfer. Therefore, the impugned G.O. came to be passed in violation of Rule 13 of the Revenue Standing Order No.26 as well as the provisions of the HR&CE Act", the Court found in the case concerning the Sakthi Mathamman Temple,.

. The Court added,

" In the present case, the failure of the Government to publish the impugned GO in the official Gazette, has also deprived the temple and its devotees to challenge the arbitrary and illegal action of the Government."

. The Court, therefore, ordered the respondent authorities to make necessary correction in the revenue records pertaining to the disputed land, finding that,

"... the attempt of the respondent authorities by issuing the impugned G.O., transferring the entire extent of the disputed land to the Fisheries Department is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the said mandatory provisions and hence, the same is declared as non-est in law."

. The Court added the religious sentiments and feelings of the devotees of the Sakthi Mathamman Temple would definitely be hurt if the proposal to set up a modern fish market and fish eatery in the temple land and adjacent to the deity were carried forward.

". .. the new construction if any, would impose restrictions on the right of worship through curtailment of area available to the devotees for conducting their regular annual festivals and other religious functions related to the temple, which amounts to violation of Article 26 of the Constitution of India ", the Judge further observed.

. The Court, however, granted an opportunity to the Fisheries Department to regularise its transactions in line with Rule 13 of the Revenue Standing Order No.26 and the provisions of the HR&CE Act " by entering into an agreement for rent/lease as per law, with HR&CE Dept., for the buildings presently occupied by them, within a period of three months ."

. On the strength of the same Rule, the Court held that the Arulmighu Kottai Mariamman Thirukoil and its devotees were also entitled to possessory and enjoyment rights over the disputed temple land, subject to the control and administration of the HR&CE Department.

. The authorities were, therefore, directed to make necessary corrections in the revenue records relating to the temple land.

. Callous attitude by HR&CE Department cannot be countenanced: Court . Before parting with the matter, the Court also took critical note that the HR&CE Department had not been vigilant enough in protecting the interests of temple properties. The Court observed,

. "... the HR&CE Dept., which is the custodians of the temple properties, has not taken any steps to protect the interest of the temples, though the subject temples fall within the purview of the HR&CE Dept. Such callous attitude on their part cannot be countenanced. This Court, time and again observed that Temples in Tamil Nadu are not only a source of identification of the ancient culture, but also a testimony of pride and knowledge of the talent in the field of arts, science and sculpture and a conduit for spiritual activities as well; and that, the properties of the religious institutions, more particularly, the temples have to be maintained properly in order to derive more income to spend for its betterment." . Therefore, the Court has also issued a series of directions to the HR&CE Department to remove encroachments from the two temples before it, prevent its unauthorised use against the interests of the temples and to ensure " the unrestricted freedom of worship by the devotees to the subject temples ."

. An authorised officer has also been directed to maintain a proper register with all financial aspects concerning the two temples and its properties, which is to be filed at proper intervals before the concerned authority. Failing this, the Court has ordered for department action against the deliquent officer.

. Advocates T Kokilavane, VBR Menon, B Harikrishnan appeared on behalf of the petitioners. A Radhakrishnan appeared party in person.

. Additional Advocate General SR Rajagopal, assisted by ADGP J Ramesh, AGP and Special Government Pleader for the HR&CE Department M Maharaja appeared for the respondent-authorities.

. Read the Judgment:

Temple lands can be utilised only for the beneficial purposes of the temple: Madras High Court [Read Judgment]

Meera Emmanuel

Related Stories