- (1.)THE present writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 5277 of 2006. The said writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner forbearing the respondents 1 and from cancelling the lease-hold right of the petitioner or evicting him from the paddy field comprised in R. S. No. 534 of 2003 and 534 of 2005 of an extent of 0. 84. 5 area in Thazhakudi Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District except due pro?cess of law.
(2.)THE learned single Judge on the basis of the statements made in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in support of the writ petition who is the Executive Officer of the temple that he has taken possession of the land as early as 2004 and that the fifth respondent is paying rent to him. Further, the re?spondents 3 and 4 who have claimed to be in possession of the said property through the writ petitioner as sub-lessees. The respondents 3 and 4 filed a suit in O. S. No. 39 of 2005 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil for the relief of permanent injunc?tion and not to disturb the possession against the temple and the same is dismissed. Therefore, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition stating that it can be resolved only by letting in evidence by the parties.
(3.)AGAINST which the writ appeal is filed contending that the decision of the learned sin?gle Judge is against the law. Further, contended that the learned single Judge has failed to note that the lease in favour of the peti?tioners father in respect of paddy field com?prised in R. S. No. 534 of 2003 and 534 of 2005 of an extent of 0. 84. 5 acres situate in Thazhakudi Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District was not in dispute and on his death, the lease hold right in the prop?erty devolved upon the petitioner by way of a family arrangement. Therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition is illegal. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the second re?spondent in support of the writ petition stated that the possession of the petitioner is admitted by way of initiating proceedings under the rev?enue recovery proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition should not have dismissed. Fur?ther contended that the 5th respondent cannot be authorised to recover the possession of the property in question after dismissal of the suit tiled by the respondents 3 and 4 who are the sub-lessees of the petitioner. Further contended that as per procedures contemplated under Sections 78 and 79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 the area has, to be recovered not by the provisions of the revenue recovery pro?ceedings Act. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside.