Madras High Court
C.Siva Gurunathan vs The Joint Commissioner on 18 July, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.15168, 15170 & 15171 of 2025
W.P.(MD).No.19712 of 2025
C.Siva Gurunathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Sivagangai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Ramanathapuram.
3.Mathivanan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by 2nd respondent in Se.Mu.Nada.Na.Ka.
1689-99/2024/A7, dated 20.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to continue as the
chairman of Board of Trustee of non-hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Thiruna
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025
Jyotheeswarar Temple at Pullur Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram
District.
W.P.(MD).No.19713 of 2025
C.Siva Gurunathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Sivagangai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
Notification No.1689/2024-206/A7, dated 23.06.2025 issued by the 2nd
respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as the Chairman of Board of
Trustee of non-hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Thiruna Jyotheeswarar Temple at
Pullur Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
For Petitioner : M/s.J.Anandavalli
for Mr.V.Manikandan
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.S.S.Madhavan
Additional Government Pleader
(In both cases)
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as a non-hereditary trustee on 07.02.2025. The petitioner was also elected as Chairman of the Board of Trustees by two other trustees appointed on 07.02.2025 along with the petitioner under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
2. It appears that the third respondent had earlier filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.6052 of 2025, wherein, the third respondent had challenged the order appointing the petitioner and two other trustees, namely, K.Marimuthu and V.Logambal as non-hereditary trustees. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with the following observations:
“7. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal as against the impugned order before the first respondent herein, as per Section 21 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the first respondent shall dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the first respondent to consider the same on its own merits.” Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm ) W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025
3. Instead of filing revision under Section 21 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the third respondent sent a representation to the second respondent herein alleging that the petitioner was in possession of the land of the temple and had secured a patta in the name of the petitioner. It appears that the records were called for based on the complaint of the third respondent and ultimately, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.04.2025 bearing reference in e.f.vz;.1689-99/2024-2/m7, the content of which has been extracted hereunder:
“Nkw;gb 16.04.2025 md;W eilngw;w tprhuiz kw;Wk; rkHg;gpf;fg;gl;l Mtzq;fis ghprPyid nra;jjpy; guk;giu Kiw toprhuh mwq;fhtyHfshf epakdk; nra;ag;gl;l jpU.rp.rptFUehjd; kw;Wk; jpUkjp th.Nyhfhk;ghs; MfpNahH Gy vz;.207-y; cs;s Nfhapy; epykhdJ chpa cj;jutpd;wp 207/2 vd cl;gphpT nra;ag;gl;L jdpegH ngahpy; gl;lh khWjy; nra;ag;gl;lJ tUtha;Jiw Mtzq;fs; %yk; cWjpahfpwJ.
vdNt> Nkw;gb jpUf;NfhapYf;F nrhe;jkhd epyj;jpid Jiw mDkjpapd;wp KiwNflhf epy chpik khw;wk; nra;J gj;jpug;gjpT ele;Js;sjhy; jpUf;Nfhapy; mwq;fhtyH FOj; jiytH jpU.rp.rptFUehjd; kw;Wk; mwq;fhtyH cWg;gpdH jpUkjp.th.Nyhfhk;ghs; MfpNahiu “Vd; gjtp ePf;fk; nra;af; $lhJ?” vd;gjpw;fh tpsf;fj;jpid ,j;jghy; fpilf;fg;ngw;w 15 jpdq;fSf;Fk; tpsf;fk; mspf;f Nfl;Lf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.
jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; Nkw;gb Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; kPJ jf;f eltbf;if Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm ) W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025 Nkw;nfhs;sg;gLk; vd;w tptuk; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.”
4. The petitioner has replied to the same and thereafter, he has suffered the impugned order. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner stated that the land in question was mutated in favour of the petitioner's maternal grandmother, Abirami wayback in the year 1973 and that the land was thereafter inherited by the petitioner's aunt, one V.Logambal, who in turn has settled the property in favour of the petitioner on 27.02.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there has been procedural irregularities committed in the proceedings as no proper charge memo was issued to the petitioner, as is contemplated under Section 53(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The learned counsel also took this Court through the settlement register, wherein, the extent of land in Survey No.207 has been shown to be 177.50 Acres and that the land has been classified as 'Sarkar Poromboke' and the description has been given as follows:
“tl;lf; fpzWk; Gy;Y}H nghpa fz;khAk; NfhtpYk; u];jh” Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm ) W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025
6. The learned counsel also compared the same with the 'A' Register of the said Village in Survey No.207, where, the total extent of the land has been given as 71.83.0 in hectares/ares or 71 hectares and 83 ares as detailed below:
0.26.0 0.52 71.83.0 0.52
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has an appellate remedy under Section 53(5) of the Act before the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed correctly after following due process of law, as is contemplated under Section 53 of the Act. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 28.04.2025 bearing reference in e.f.vz;. 1689-99/2024-2/m7, the content of which has been extracted above. It is further submitted that in Survey No.207, the description of the land in the settlement register is clear and the extents given in the settlement register and the 'A' Register of the Village corresponds with each other, which shows that the land was wrongly usurped by the petitioner's grandmother wayback in the year 1973 by obtaining a revenue patta and thereafter, the land has been settled in favour Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm ) W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025 of the petitioner on 27.02.2025, which is in contravention to Section 53(2)(e) &
(j) of the Act. He therefore submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner is relying on the uncertified copy of the proceedings of Devakottai Divisional Officer dated 18.10.1973 giving patta in favour of the petitioner's grandmother.
9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2, prima facie, there is no case made out for interference with the impugned order passed by the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 53(5) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
10. The extent of the land, that has been shown in the Settlement Register, measures 177.50 Acres. It translates to 71 Hectares and 831 Ares. The description of the land is recorded as Tank, Waterbody, Padhai, and Temple. This corresponds with the total extent recorded in the 'A' Register, measuring an Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm ) W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025 extent of 71 Hectares and 83 Ares [i.e., 177.50 Acres]. Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in this Writ Petition.
11. Prima facie, the patta over the land, which belonged to the temple, was issued to the petitioner's maternal grandmother, Abirami, by the Revenue Authorities, wrongly. The land was subsequently settled by the petitioner's aunt, who was also appointed as a non-hereditary trustee of the temple along with the petitioner. Thus, a prima facie case is made out for the removal of the petitioner from the post of non-hereditary trustee of the said temple. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 or the impugned Notification dated 23.06.2025.
12. The argument that the extent of the land held by the temple is not mentioned in Patta No.425, which was issued in favour of the temple, can be independently considered by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal to be filed by the petitioner under Section 53(5) of the Act in case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner will forgo his rights over the land. It is for the petitioner to make an appropriate declaration to Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm ) W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025 this effect in the appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 53(5) of the Act.
13. With the above liberty, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.07.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
To
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sivagangai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Ramanathapuram.
Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm ) W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025 C.SARAVANAN,J.
Lm W.P.(MD).Nos.19712 and 19713 of 2025 18.07.2025 Page 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2025 06:45:11 pm )