HC quashes eviction proceedings against amusement park

There is a tussle between Revenue and HR&CE departments over the title of the property and there is no conclusive proof of it being a temple land, says the court

June 16, 2022 10:37 pm | Updated October 11, 2022 03:49 pm IST - CHENNAI

The department can invoke the legal provision only if the property is owned by a religious institution and not otherwise

The department can invoke the legal provision only if the property is owned by a religious institution and not otherwise | Photo Credit: K. PICHUMANI

The Madras High Court on Wednesday restrained Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department from evicting Queensland Amusement Park at Pappanchatiram village in Kancheepuram district for want of conclusive evidence to prove that the property belonged to Kasi Viswanathar and Venugopaleeswarar temple.

Justice V.M. Velumani allowed writ petitions filed by owners of the amusement park and set aside the eviction proceedings initiated under Section 78 of the HR&CE Act. The judge held that the department could invoke the legal provision only if the property was owned by a religious institution and not otherwise.

In so far as 21.06 acres of land occupied by the amusement park, there was a dispute between the HR&CE and the Revenue departments over its title. The HR&CE department had claimed it to be a temple land on the basis of a Will executed by Venkaiah Zamindar in 1884 bequeathing 177.7 acres of land to the temple.

On the other hand, the Revenue department had claimed that the property was classified as Anadheenam lands after the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 came into force on January 1, 1951. Therefore, temple’s request for issuance of patta for the property was rejected in 1956.

Despite this dispute, the temple had entered into a lease agreement for agricultural purpose and handed over the property to the petitioner who had established the amusement park. Now, the dispute between the HR&CE department and the Revenue department over the ownership of the property was pending before the Commissioner of Land Administration.

Meanwhile, the petitioner had offered to provide an alternative land to the government and the Collector had inspected that land. The Collector had held that the lease granted by the temple to the petitioners was erroneous. Therefore, the HR&CE department had no authority to initiate eviction proceedings, the judge said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.