Update from Theosophy News:

 

The law suit filed in Chennai High Court by Krishnaphani and Rama Chandra Rao against TS, its officers and others involved in Election is going forward to trial. Judge has just released his judgement. Judgement is in public domain and can be downloaded at the link listed below.

http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/Judge_Result_Disp.asp?MyChk=233224

 

Tim Boyd, as President of TS, filed objections claiming that the members have no standing to sue.

This was denied and judge has ruled that they have standing and hence the case goes forward to trial.

It is significant that the judge has recognized the importance of fair and free elections in Democracy and let us all pray that at the end of the day, the law suit will fix the TS President Election System as it is very critical to the future of theosophical movement.

We can be sure that theosophical movement will ultimately win.

 

In the trial, much details would emerge, we all should be ready for many surprises.

 

 

Some Key Observations:

 

"Accordingly, this application (of Tim Boyd) deserves no merits and the same is dismissed." 

 

"Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the applicant/D10 is not  justified in contending that the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs are not having locus-standi to file the present suit" 

.

"Court has also found that a member or voter of a Society/Association has a right to challenge the elections in the absence of specific bar either in the Bye-laws or under the statutory provisions."

 

"I have already pointed out that the By-laws of the first defendant-Association are totally silent about the manner in which the elections have to be challenged."

 

"Election is a symbol of Democracy and the same has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedures established by law in a fair, transparent and unbiased manner. There cannot be any compromise on the mandatory and essential procedures in conducting the elections. Only when those procedures are strictly followed, it could be said that the Democratic way of electing people, has been achieved. If there are any deviations, it should be viewed seriously, as the same cannot get the seal of approval from a Court of Law, automatically.”

 

MKR

Visit: www.fb.com/theosophynews 
         www.twitter.com/theosophynews
         https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/theos-talk/info

         www.theosophy.net

Views: 2676

Replies to This Discussion

[ Theosophy (Adyar)  &  Russian Lodges ]

New Lawsuit regarding TS Land ownership of 81 acres 

From 

================================================

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/madras-high-court-...

On Sun, Mar 31, 2024, 2:40 PM peacebliss@gmail.com <peacebliss@gmail.com> wrote:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS. DATED: 30.10.2023
CORAM. THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN.W.P.No.30993 of 2023
and W.M.P.No.30631 of 2023

The Theosophical Society
Rep. by its General Manager
Mr.K.Jaikumar Petitioner

versus

1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
Survey and Settlement
Chepauk, Chennai&#126;600 005.

2. The District Collector
Chennai District
Office of the Collectorate
Rajaji Salai, Chennai&#126;600 001.

3. The District Revenue Officer
Office of the District Revenue Officer
Chennai Collectorate
Rajaji Salai
Chennai&#126;600 001.

4. The Tahsildar
Office of the Tahsildar
Velachery, Chennai.
5. The Joint Director
Land Survey and Settlement Department
Survey House,
Chepauk, Chennai&#126;600 005.

6. Faiza Ahmed
Vaniya Street, Kundrathur
Chennai&#126;600069. ...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.J7/18055/2021 dated 31.03.2023 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to restore the name of the petitioner in respect of the lands comprised in Old Survey Nos.26, 28, 29A and 29B admeasuring an extent of 81.25 acres situated in Urur Village, Velachery Taluk.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings dated 31.03.2023 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.J7/18055/2021 made by the third respondent and to direct the third respondent to restore the name of the petitioner in respect of the lands comprised in Old Survey Nos.26, 28, 29A and 29B admeasuring an extent of 81.25 acres situated in Urur Village, Velachery Taluk.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the writ petitioner&#126;Society was incorporated in the year 1905 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and had its Headquarters at Adyar and branches all over the world in 70 countries. The society&#45;s aims and objectives are to nurture universal brotherhood, to encourage comparative study of all religions and to explore unexplained laws of nature as well as powers latent in man. The petitioner&#126;Society has been in possession and absolute enjoyment of the subject matter property. The fourth respondent herein vide letter dated 06.15.2013 had directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry along with copies of documents in which the petitioner had acquired the property. The petitioner&#126;Society in response to the said enquiry notice had filed all the documents namely, indenture of sale dated 15.02.1908, agreement executed on 15.02.1908 and certified copy of patta. On submission of necessary records, no further action was taken by fourth respondent and the petitioner &#126; Society presumed that the matter was closed. Thereafter, on 01.07.2022, the petitioner received an enquiry notice from the third respondent wherein an order of this Hon&#45;ble Court made in W.P.No.10703 of 2022 filed by the sixth respondent herein was referred to and the petitioner was called upon to appear for an enquiry on 12.07.2022. Even though the petitioner appeared before the respondents and submitted the requisite documents, the third respondent passed the impugned order erroneously holding that the petitioner&#126;Society has not filed any documents to establish their title over the land in question. Challenging the said impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner&#126;Society submits that there is a clear cut sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner, without even considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. Learned Senior counsel for writ petitioner submits that earlier a writ petition has been filed by sixth respondent herein vide W.P.No.10703 of 2022 seeking a mandamus to direct the third and fourth respondents therein to carry out the order passed by the second respondent dated 18.09.2019 and issue patta in the name of the sixth respondent herein and his family members for the subject matter property. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that this Hon&#45;ble Court had dispensed with the notice to the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as sixth respondent therein since no adverse order is passed against the sixth respondent therein and disposed of the same on 28.04.2022 with the following directions:

In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the second and third respondents to implement the orders passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.E.1/2111/2018 dated 30.11.2019 and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.5/10246/18 (Ni.Aa) dated 18.09.2019 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and 6th respondent herein, pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.&#45;

4. Learned Senior counsel for writ petitioner submits that learned single Judge of this Court has passed the order in earlier writ petition without even issuing notice to the sixth respondent therein (writ petitioner herein). Further, even in the impugned order despite the writ petitioner produced all the documents, the authority has mentioned that no document has been produced.

5. Learned Advocate General submits that an appeal remedy is available to the writ petitioner, however, without filing the same, the writ petitioner has come forward to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. He further submits that the earlier order in W.P.No.10703 of 2022 was passed only to survey the property and not to decide the title of the property.

6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the impugned order itself says that the writ petitioner has not produced any documents regarding the title of the property. Learned Senior counsel for writ petitioner submits that even though the writ petitioner has produced all the documents, the authority has mentioned in the impugned order that no document has been produced by the writ petitioner and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.03.2023 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.J7/18055/2021 is set aside and matter is remitted back to the third respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, after considering all the documents that have already been filed by the writ petitioner and after affording an opportunity to both parties. Both the parties are directed to submit all documents with representation, if any and based on such representation to be filed, after affording opportunity to both parties, the third respondent is directed to complete the whole exercise on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
≠=================================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS. DATED: 07.12.2023

THE HON-BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND THE HON-BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.A.No.3343 of 2023

The Theosophical Society
Rep. by its General Manager
K.Jaikumar, Adyar
Chennai 600 020. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary and Commissioner
Survey and Settlement
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2. The District Collector
Chennai District, Office of the Collectorate
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
3. The District Revenue Officer
Office of the District Revenue Officer
Chennai Collectorate, Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600 001.
4. The Tahsildar
Office of the Tahsildar
Velachery, Chennai.
5. The Joint Director
Land Survey and Settlement Department
Survey House, Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
6. Faiza Ahmed .. Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30.10.2023 in W.P.No.30993 of 2023

JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon-ble Chief Justice)

Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.V.Perumal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate and Ms.A.G.Shakeena, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5.

2. The present appellant has filed a writ petition, challenging the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the District Revenue Officer. Under the said order, the District Revenue Officer had directed the Tahsildar, Velachery, to closely compare all the lands in possession of the Theosophical Society with the pre~city land survey map and get necessary report from the concerned Registration Department to take immediate steps to recover the Government lands, if there are any. It was observed in the said order that the appellant has not produced any documents to substantiate its claim. The learned Single Judge, under the impugned order, set aside the said order and remitted the matter to the District Revenue Officer to decide it afresh.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the District Revenue Officer cannot decide the issue of title. The appellant Society was incorporated in the year 1905 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The appellant is the owner of the property pursuant to the sale deed. Earlier, a writ petition was also filed by respondent 6 bearing W.P.No.10703 of 2022 seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents 3 and 4 therein to carryout the orders passed by respondent 2 therein and issue patta in the name of respondent 6. In the said matter, the presence of the appellant was dispensed with. The Court only directed the respondents therein to implement the orders.

4. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Collector has already passed an order on or about 21.01.2017 to the effect that as per the Town Survey, the name of Theosophical Society is registered in the adangal column. The District Revenue Officer could not have traveled beyond the said order of the Collector.

5. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the District Revenue Officer against the appellant and has remitted the matter back to give opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents and further directed the District Revenue Officer to decide the same on its own merits within a period of two months. Naturally, the District Revenue Officer would be required to consider the stand taken by the appellant, including the contention as to the authority of the District Revenue Officer to decide the question of title or of such other contentions to be raised by the appellant.

6. In light of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. As directed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant may produce all documents on record and put forth its stand. The District Revenue Officer certainly would be required to consider the stand of the appellant and other parties before taking the decision on its own merits.

7. The writ appeal, as such, stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.27291 and 27292 of 2023 are closed.


On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 8:27 PM M K Ramadoss <mkr777@gmail.com> wrote:

Ownership of 81 acres of prime invaluable land along the seashore is in dispute and heirs of original owners are litigating to get it back from Theosophical Society at Adyar.

Government authorities have ordered TS to appear before them on February 14th with documents supporting the ownership claim.

Keep tuned for the outcome of the meeting.

Property is the priciest and is valued at Rs. 4,000 crores (US$500 million).

Who knows what is the Karma of TS. Keep tuned

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2024   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service