The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department can appoint a ‘Fit Person’ even to administer lands or money that had been endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a mutt or temple or for the performance of any other religious charity, the Madras High Court has held.
Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy refused to accept the argument that a Fit Person could be appointed only for the management of a religious institution and not for administering the lands especially if those lands in Tamil Nadu had been endowed to a temple situated outside the State.
“The lands cannot be said to be mere properties but are endowments as defined under Section 6 (17) of the HR&CE Act, 1959... If the land is endowed to a temple with specific purpose, then it becomes ‘specific endowment.’ A Specific Endowment by itself would be a religious institution,” the first Division Bench wrote.
The verdict was passed while disposing of a writ appeal filed by the Sankaracharya Swamigal of Kanchi Kamakoti Peedam in his capacity as the hereditary trustee of Sri Viswanatha Swamy Devasthanam at Melavanjur in Thirumalairaya Pattinam Taluk in the Union Territory of Puducherry.
According to the appellant, the Puducherry-based Devasthanam owned 26.13 acres of wet land and 182.55 acres of dry land at Panangudi revenue village in Nannilam Taluk of Nagapattinam district in Tamil Nadu. In 1994, the Tamil Nadu HR&CE department took steps to appoint a Fit Person to administer the properties.
Though the Devasthanam raised objections, the Executive Officer of the Navaneethaswamy Temple at Sikkal in Nagapattinam district was given additional charge as the Fit Person to fix fair rent for the lands owned by the Puducherry Devasthanam, collect arrears and also evict the encroachers.
Challenging such appointment, the appellant claimed that it was a private temple that does not fall even under the purview of the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972 and therefore it was absurd on the part of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE department to appoint a Fit Person to manage its properties.
However, on perusal of records, the judges found that the appellant’s claim of being a private temple had been made solely on the basis of a certificate issued by the Additional Commissioner of Hindu Religious Institutions in Puducherry on March 26, 1991 stating that the Devasthanam does not fall under the 1972 Act.
Finding that the certificate had been issued to enable the temple authorities to obtain electricity and water service connections to properties belonging to the Devasthanam, the Bench said, “the same cannot be construed as one declaring the appellant as a private temple.”
Further, the judges recorded the submission of Special Government Pleader (HR&CE) N.R.R. Arun Natarajan that on an earlier occasion, the Devasthanam, had on its own accord, approached the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Commissioner and obtained permission on May 27, 2007 to sell a part of its lands in Panangudi village.
Pointing out that the Devasthanam need not have sought such permission unless it was a public temple, the Bench said, the present claim of it being a private temple could be established either before a civil court or by approaching the authorities concerned under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act or the Puducherry Act.
“If such a declaration is granted, then automatically it comes out of the purview of Section 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Act (which empowers the HR&CE officials to exercise control over temple properties located in Tamil Nadu even if the temple was situated outside the State),” the Division Bench concluded.
