Basavayya vs Dasappa Basavayya Vs Kemban Basavayya Vs Ramayya Basavayya Vs State by Inspector of Police, Denkanikottai

Sengottuvelan, J.—By consent the main revision petition itself is taken up for disposal. In an application u/s 101 of the Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959 by the trustees appointed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment

having jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate directed delivery of the temple, records and its movable properties without notice to the Respondent-the

Petitioner herein, who according to the Petitioner is the trustee. The Petitioner raises the following contentions in support of his argument that the

order of the learned Magistrate ordering delivery is not sustainable:-

(1) The delivery of temple and its records can be ordered only after issuing notice to the Petitioner herein. (2) In respect of the movable properties

the delivery can be ordered only on the production of certificate u/s 101 of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, issued by the

Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. having jurisdiction. In so far as the first contention is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court has held that

though the proceedings u/s 101 is summary, yet there must be an enquiry within the four corners of the Section after issuing notice to the Petitioner

herein. In this case the learned Magistrate has not issued notice, and hence the order directing delivery without issuing notice to the Petitioner

herein is clearly erroneous.

In so far as the second contention is concerned, the Petitioner is at liberty to take this objection before the lower Court and the lower Court will

consider the same on merits.

Consequently, the order of the learned Magistrate directing delivery without notice to the Petitioner herein is clearly unsustainable and the same

is set aside and this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.