In its latest ruling, the Madras High Court instructed the District Collector of Kanchipuram on 13th May 2023 to enforce eviction orders related to temple land, which were issued against members of a cooperative society back in 2012. The court observed that based on the facts of the case, it appeared that there were efforts being made to unlawfully acquire the temple land with the intention of making substantial profits, considering the significant increase in land value in the vicinity of the temple.
The verdict was given by the single-judge bench of Justice SM Subramaniam. The order was issued in response to a set of petitions filed by members of the Kovur Agricultural Cooperative Farms Society. These petitions challenged the eviction order issued in 2012 by the President and Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Court in Cuddalore, which called for the removal of the petitioners from agricultural lands belonging to a temple located in Kovur, a suburb of Chennai.
In 1969, the Kovur Agricultural Cooperative Farms Society entered into a lease agreement with the temple, allowing its members to utilize the temple land for agricultural purposes. However, even after the lease expired in 1981, the society’s members continued to occupy the temple’s land without legal authorization.
Following the liquidation of the society, eviction orders were issued against the petitioners by the local revenue court in 2012. Additionally, the revenue court directed the petitioners to pay outstanding rent amounting to Rs 50 lakhs. Dissatisfied with the decision of the revenue court, the petitioners approached the high court to seek redress. The petitioners contended that they were not provided with a fair opportunity to present their case, as required by the Tamil Nadu Public Trust Act, 1961.
In response, the respondents strongly opposed the petitions, asserting that the petitioners lacked the legal standing to invoke the provisions of the Public Trust Act against the temple. They argued that the property in question rightfully belonged to the temple, and no formal agreement had been established between the temple and the petitioners regarding the use or occupation of the land.
Justice SM Subramaniam said, “The land grabber’s attempt to take away the temple land in any form is intolerable…(Further) Loss of time would result in infringement of the right of a Deity, who is a minor.” The court expressed its opinion that as the temple operated as a public trust, any tenancy agreement entered into with the Cooperative Society could not grant the petitioners the right to assert the status of a lessee or any other related benefits.
The court said, “The rights of the petitioners are to be claimed only against the third respondent-Cooperative Society…The Tamil Nadu Public Trust Act, 1961 has no application in respect of the case of the petitioners.” Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitioners’ argument that they had been kept uninformed and that all proceedings had been conducted without their knowledge, without any notice being issued or served to them.
The court said, “The third respondent-Cooperative Society participated in all legal proceedings initiated by the Temple Authorities and even the interim order passed by the Revenue Court to settle the arrears was communicated to the Cooperative Society, which was informed to its members to settle the same in respect of the information passed by the third respondent-Society to its members.”
The court added, “The arrears of rent have not been settled for several years and the Revenue Court, after the lapse of about 11 years, has passed an order of eviction against the Cooperative Society, which in turn is liable to evict their own members and handover the subject property to the first respondent-Temple.”
The court held the view that the present case represented a classic case in which the petitioners, using their membership in the third respondent Society, were attempting to unlawfully remain in possession of the temple property without any legal authority and in the absence of a valid tenancy agreement.
The court observed, “As per the respondent temple, the petitioners have started subletting the property for commercial purposes and earning huge money for personal gains, which is unjust and illegal.”
Consequently, the court concluded that the temple was not required to provide any notice to the members of the Cooperative Society. As a result, the court dismissed the requested reliefs put forth by the petitioners.
Furthermore, the court instructed the District Collector of Kanchipuram District to execute the eviction order issued by the Revenue Court in 2012. The court specifically directed the District Collector to proceed with the eviction of all individuals occupying the lands belonging to the temple.
