Alka Verma –
Published On: September 21, 2021 at 11:10 IST
Recently, the Madras High Court has restated that Illegal and Fraudulent Encroachment of temple properties is a crime against the society at large.
Justice SM Subramaniam made such statements while he upheld the eviction proceedings against a man.
The man was claiming himself to be the lessee of some property owned by the Arulmigu Agastheeswarar Swamy Thirukoil.
“Fraudulent and illegal encroachments of temple properties is a crime against the society at large. Misappropriation of the funds of the temple is undoubtedly an offence and all such offences are to be registered and the offenders are liable to be prosecuted by the State as the State is the controller of these temples and the offences are also committed against the State,” stated Justice Subramaniam.
Further adding to it the Court stated that the property belonging to any temple should be protected only by the authorized person like their trustees, Archaks, Sebaits or employees.
The Court further added that however, in previous times there have been many instances where the authorized person has turned out to be the wrongdoer and has misappropriated the property in many ways.
“The Government, members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation,” remarked the Court.
The Court also stated that Public Law is involved in such matters and thus it is a duty of every High Court to deal with such matters very strictly and failing to it will be understood as High Court failing in its Constitutional Obligation.
“The High Court is not expected to close its eyes in respect of such patent illegalities in dealing with the temple properties. The High Court has its constitutional obligation in such circumstances to step-in and protect the interest of the minor idol and issue appropriate orders,” read the Judgement.
Taking a note about the documents of Petitioner, the Court didn’t find any valid proof to support the lease rights and Petitioner and hence concluded that he along with his father and uncle, who earlier had the leasing rights were illegal occupant.
Click here to read/download the Order
Also Read: Bombay HC: Arbitral Tribunal cannot apply public law principles against public body