On 5th December, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed three writ petitions filed by the Mother Superior of Amali Girls’ Higher Secondary School and Amali Convent. In its order, the court upheld the eviction order, saying that the Amali Convent illegally occupied the property of Pillayan Arthasaam Kattalai that comes under Arulmigu Papanasaswamy Temple in district Tirunelveli. The court also criticised the petitioner for using children as a “smoke screen” to justify the illegal encroachment on temple land.
As per the court judgment accessed by OpIndia, Amali Convent challenged the eviction notice by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department served back in 2013 for the 11 acres of land originally owned by Pillayan Arthasaam Kattalai in Papanasam of Ambasamudram Taluk under district Tirunelveli of Tamil Nadu. The court confirmed that the Joint Commissioner has jurisdiction over encroachment and eviction issues under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
Encroachment by Amali Convent
The matter revolved around four pieces of land totalling 11 acres. As per the court records, petitioner Amali Convent originally possessed 44 acres of temple land that it took on lease. There was a dispute between the petitioner and the temple authorities, leading to a petition from the temple authorities to get the land back. The District Munsif Court at Ambasamudram dismissed the initial petition. An appeal was filed in the Sub Court at Tenkari in 1985.
During the first appeal, both parties came to a settlement under which the Amali Convent returned the land but kept 11 acres. As per the settlement between the two parties, Amali Convent would pay Rs 2,000 as the land’s rent per year and use it only for agriculture purposes.
Eviction notice served after illegal construction on agricultural land
However, in 2012, the temple authorities found that Amali Convent built superstructures on the land that went against the settlement conditions. The temple authorities sent an eviction notice on 22nd October 2012, which was received by the petitioner on 1st November 2012. When the petitioner did not return the land, the temple authorities filed a petition before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli.
In its reply, petitioner Amali Convent admitted the land was on lease but claimed it was not only for agriculture purposes. The petitioner also contended that the temple authorities consented to build a school on the land. The petitioner gave an excuse that the school was built to uplift the women in the area and was not a commercial property. The petitioner also offered to purchase the land from the temple authorities. However, their reply did not stand in court, and an eviction notice was served under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
Notably, according to the HR&CE Act, any temple land can be leased for a specified period. If the occupant wishes to continue to hold the land, they must apply for a lease extension. In this case, the petitioner continued to occupy the land without extending the lease agreement, making it an unauthorised occupation. Furthermore, while the temple authorities provided all supporting documents to claim ownership of the land, the petitioner failed to submit any document that supported the claims of permission from the temple authorities to construct buildings on the occupied land.
Amali Convent used children as a ‘smoke screen’
The court noted that as the petitioner offered to buy the land, it had enough resources to construct the building elsewhere. When the petitioner argued that evicting the land would hamper the education of the girls studying there, the court criticised the petitioner for using the children as a “smoke screen”. The court said that the petitioner was served an eviction notice in 2013. They had enough time to shift the school elsewhere but continued occupying the land. Hence, the argument that it would hamper the children’s education did not stand. The court specifically highlighted that the petitioner manipulated the “children’s welfare” argument to evade legal accountability.
Furthermore, the court acknowledged that there was a need to minimise the disruption to the students and allowed a grace period till 31st March 2024, the end of the semester, to vacate the land. Though the court provided the said concession, it was firmly held that there was a need to safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful occupation. The court also asked Amali Convent to submit affidavit that it will handover the land to the temple authorities by the end of March 2024.
