Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court addressed a plea challenging the lease of 2.50 acres of land belonging to the Sri Somanathaswamy Temple in Kolathur to the Sri Kapaliswarar Temple in Mylapore. The land is leased for 25 years for the purpose of establishing an Arts and Science College. The petitioner, T.R. Ramesh, argued that the lease process did not comply with the statutory requirements outlined in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. However, Justice M. Dhandapani ruled that the lease served a benevolent purpose and refused to quash the order, allowing the petitioner to raise concerns with the appropriate authorities.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

T.R. Ramesh, the petitioner, challenged the legality of the lease on multiple grounds. He argued that the authorities had failed to comply with the statutory requirements under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, which regulates the leasing of temple land. Specifically, he claimed that the required approval for the alienation of temple property had not been obtained and that the necessary information regarding the lease was not properly published, as mandated by law.

Ramesh contended that the failure to follow these statutory provisions compromised the validity of the lease and could lead to the misuse or misappropriation of temple property. He emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal framework established to safeguard temple lands and prevent unlawful alienation. He argued that the land, as part of a religious institution, should not be leased out without adequate checks and balances. He sought the court’s intervention to quash the public notice issued in the Tamil newspaper Makkal Kural, which announced the proposed lease.

Arguments of the Respondents:

Representing the respondents, Special Government Pleader Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, on behalf of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Department, countered the petitioner’s claims by defending the legality of the lease. He pointed out that after the resolution for the lease, the Executive Officer of the temple had appointed Trustees to manage temple affairs, ensuring no prejudice to the temple land or its administration.

The Special Government Pleader further stated that all necessary procedural requirements would be followed, including obtaining the necessary approvals and ensuring transparency in the lease process. He argued that the notification regarding the lease was legally valid and allowed the public the opportunity to raise objections or suggestions about the proposed lease.

Additionally, he highlighted that the government had acted responsibly, and any concerns the petitioner had could be addressed by submitting written objections to the HR & CE Department. He maintained that the court should dismiss the plea as the notification was lawful, and procedural concerns could be addressed at the departmental level.

Court’s Judgment:

After reviewing the arguments, Justice M. Dhandapani acknowledged the benevolent purpose behind leasing the temple land for establishing an Arts and Science College. The court recognized that the order aimed to promote educational opportunities and could be seen as serving the public good. Justice Dhandapani stated that it would be inappropriate to interfere with the lease at this stage, especially since the petitioner had the option to raise his grievances with the HR & CE Department.

In his judgment, Justice Dhandapani observed, “Upon scrutinizing the notification, it is evident that the temple lands are leased long-term to run a college, which is a benevolent objective.” The court emphasized that if the petitioner identified any procedural irregularities, he should submit his objections and suggestions to the appropriate authorities. The court reinforced the importance of following proper legal channels to address such concerns.

The Madras High Court directed the petitioner to submit his written objections and suggestions concerning the lease to the HR & CE Department by October 9, 2024. The court also instructed the department to consider the petitioner’s submissions on their merits, thereby allowing an opportunity for grievances to be heard andaddressed.