V.Marichamy Naidu vs Executive Officer

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J

In all these writ petitions, the respective petitione order of refixation of fair rent with effect from 01.07.2016.

Consequential orders for initiation of proceedings under Sections 7 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (the Act of 1959) are also under challenge.

The respective petitioner assails the order of refixat rent primarily on the ground that such fair rent has been refixed w retrospective effect. By relying upon an order passed in N.Gurusamy Nadar and Others v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitabl Endowments Department, 2018 (3) MWN (Civil) 167, it is contended th the Court categorically held that fixation of fair rent with retros effect is impermissible in law. Therefore, the respective petitione contends that the impugned order of refixation of fair rent is unsustainable. Although an appellate remedy is provided for under Section 34A(3) of the Act of 1959, it is submitted that these writ are maintainable in view of the failure of the respondent to take i account the above mentioned order. The respective petitioner also contends that great prejudice would be caused if these writ petition not entertained inasmuch as the proviso to Section 34A(5) mandates the refixed rent should be paid and satisfactory proof thereof subm before an appeal is entertained.

On the contrary, the respondent submits that the const validity of Section 34A of the Act of 1959, including in particular proviso to Section 34A(5) was upheld by a Division Bench of this Co in the judgment in Arulmigu Angala Parameswa Kasivishwanathaswami Temple, Adimanaiveal House Association v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2009-3-L.W.728. Therefore, submitted that the present writ petitions are not maintainable.

Upon considering the rival contentions, it should be n statutory remedy is provided for. In addition, there are disputed q of fact as to whether the delay on fixation of fair rent is attribu respective petitioner as contended by the respondent. In these circumstances, the respective petitioner is not entitled to discret relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and should avail of th statutory remedy. At the same time, the contention of the respective petitioner that the order of this Court, which was reported in 2018 MWN (Civil) 167, has not been taken into consideration by the respondent is a contention that warrants consideration. Therefore, appellate authority shall take the same into account while disposing the appeals. In addition, since the respective petitioner is require deposit the rent and such amount is liable to be adjusted depending the outcome of the appeal, it is just and necessary that the appeal disposed of expeditiously.

Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of permitting the respective petitioner to present an appeal before th Commissioner in terms of Section 34A(3) of the Act of 1959. The respective petitioner is permitted to present such appeals within f (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such are presented within the said time limit, the Commissioner is direc receive such appeals and dispose of the same on merits within a per two months from the date of receipt thereof without going into the question of limitation. There will be no order as to costs. Consequ connected W.M.P(MD).Nos.16300 to 16303,16305, 16307, 16308, 16309, 16310 of 2021 are closed.