Madras High Court
Rajendran vs The District Collector on 11 August, 2025
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
2025:MHC:2067
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
&
W.M.P.Nos.23258 and 23259 of 2021
in W.P.No.22037 of 2021
Rajendran,
Chairman,
Temple Committee,
Arulmigu Kanchiyappa Ayyanar Temple,
Vellapallam Vanavanmahadevi Village,
Vedaranyam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Tahsildar,
Vedaranyam,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Thalanayar,
Nagapattinam District.
Page Nos.1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm )
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
Vellapallam,
Vedaranyam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
5.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034.
6.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.64/2, Neela North Street,
Nagapattinam-611001.
7.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Netaji Lane (Near Old Bus stand),
Nagapattinam-611001.
(Respondents 5 to 7 are suo motu impleaded
vide instant order) .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of
the impugned advertisement notice dated 15.08.2021 passed by the second
respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent
to pass an order in review petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of the
temple and pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to the
facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Page Nos.2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm )
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sivaraman
for Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan, AGP
for RR1 to 4
Mr.S.Ravichandran, AGP (HR&CE)
for RR5 to 7
----
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Subject matter of captioned main writ petition is 'land admeasuring 02.04.50 hectares or thereabouts bearing Survey No.52/2 in Vellapallam village, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam district' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of brevity and convenience).
2. This court is informed that 0.81.80 hectares of said land is vacant with no superstructure thereon. Second respondent has issued a terse 'advertisement dated 15.08.2021' [hereinafter 'impugned advertisement/notice' for the sake of brevity and convenience] and a scanned reproduction of the same (with clean copy) as placed before this Court is as follows:
Page Nos.3/26https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 Page Nos.4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 Page Nos.5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021
3. The writ petitioner who has been described as Chairman of a Temple Committee qua 'Arulmigu Kanchiyappa Ayyanar Temple' (hereinafter 'said temple' for the sake of brevity and convenience) has filed the captioned writ petition assailing the impugned advertisement/notice and consequently seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider writ petitioner's review petition.
4. At the outset, it is necessary to record the factual position that a suit in O.S.No.173 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam pertaining to said land and another parcel of land (to be noted, the other parcel of land is in S.No.45 and the same shall be referred to as 'another parcel of land' for the sake of brevity and convenience) was filed by persons who have described themselves as 'Thirukovil Marulaligal'.
To be noted, suit is a bare injunction suit and it is against private individuals. This suit was decreed on 10.08.2005, confirmed in first appeal vide A.S.No.52 of 2005 [judgment and decree dated 02.12.2005] on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Nagapattinam against which a second appeal in S.A.No.512 of 2006 was filed in this Court but the second Page Nos.6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 appeal was dismissed by Hon'ble Single Judge in and by order dated 20.03.2014 and the decree thereat is as follows:
Page Nos.7/26https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 Page Nos.8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021
5. From the judgment in the second appeal (dated 20.03.2014), it comes to light that said temple is situate in another parcel of land, i.e., S.No.45 admeasuring 40 Kuzhis or thereabouts. As regards said land, it also comes to light that an extent of 1.05 acres has already been given for construction of a School. However, said land has been classified as 'temple poramboke'. A scanned reproduction of judgment dated 20.03.2014 is as follows:Page Nos.9/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 Page Nos.10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 Page Nos.11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 Page Nos.12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 Page Nos.13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 Page Nos.14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021
6. It appears that in the prayer portion of the second appeal, a secretarial error has crept in, as it is concurrent judgments and not reversing judgment but refrain from expressing any opinion on the same as that may be outside the realm of the legal drill at hand.
7. Be that as it may, suffice to say that aforesaid suit does not pertain to declaration of title much less declaration of title qua said land. Equally important point is, State is not a party to the aforementioned suit.Page Nos.15/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021
8. In the aforesaid backdrop, a simple question that arises is whether said land belongs to said temple or it is Government land. In any event, even according to second appeal judgment of this court, said temple is situate only in S.No.45 and that will remain undisturbed qua impugned advertisement/notice is learned State counsel's say.
9. In this fact setting, it is deemed pertinent to write that in M.K.Gandhi case [M.K.Gandhi Vs. The District Collector, Salem and others
- order dated 25.06.2025 in W.P.No.13831 of 2022] reported in Neutral Citation 2025:MHC:1668, this Court has traced the position qua public temples in the light of 'the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959)' [hereinafter 'TN HR & CE Act' for the sake of brevity]. Relevant paragraphs of M.K.Gandhi as extracted in the order dated 07.08.2025 made in W.M.P. No.32182 of 2025 in W.P.No.28737 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'Viruthagireeshwarar Thirukoil case') are paragraph 13 to 21 and the same read as follows:
'13. TN HR & CE Act, which received Presidential assent on 19.11.1959, kicked in (came into force) on and from 01.01.1960 vide a notification dated 16.12.1959 notified in Fort St. George Gazette dated 16.12.1959 made under Section 1(4)(a). To be noted, sub section (4) of Page Nos.16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 section 92 insofar as it relates to consultative committees and sub committees thereof and section 116(2)(xxi) did not kick in on 01.01.1960 and these two provisions were to come into force retrospectively on 28.11.1958 vide section 1(4)(b) of TN HR & CE Act.
14. Prior to (Presidential assent) 19.11.1959, to be precise on 13.04.1959, the SoR (Statement of Objects and Reasons) qua TN HR & CE Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette Extraordinary. A careful perusal of the SoR makes it clear that it was considered necessary to put in place a comprehensive Act which is applicable to all 'Hindu Public Religious institutions and endowments' except Incorporated and Unincorporated Devaswoms in Kanyakumari district and Shencottah taluk of Tirunelveli District. Suffice to say that the object of the TN HR & CE Act inter-alia is to make it applicable to all 'Hindu public religious institutions'. This part of the SoR has been codified vide sub section (3) of section 1 which makes it clear that TN HR & CE Act is applicable to all (a) Hindu public religious institutions, (b) endowments, (c) incorporated Devaswoms and (d) unincorporated Devaswoms. As regards these four categories, all four terms have been defined. (a)religious institution, (b) endowment, (c) incorporated Devaswoms and (d) unincorporated Devaswoms are defined vide sub sections (18), (17), (12) and (23) respectively, all of section 6 of TN HR & CE Act.
15. The definition of 'religious institutions' vide Section 6(18) makes it clear that it includes five categories of institutions, Page Nos.17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 namely (a) math, (b) temple, (c) specific endowment, (d) samadhi and (e) brindhavan. While three are defined, two are explained.
Math, Temple and specific endowment are defined vide sub sections (13), (20) and (19) of section 6, samadhi and brindhavan are explained vide Explanation (1) and (2) respectively of section 6(18).
16. Therefore, it is clear that 'temple' is a 'religious institution', both of which are defined terms. The definition of temple vide section 6(20) makes it clear that a place of public religious worship which is dedicated to or which is for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu community or of any section thereof as a place of public religious worship, is a temple irrespective of designation by which it is known.
17. There is no disputation before this court that 'Sri Varasithi Vinayagar Temple and Sri Sorna Ellai Kaliyamman Temple in Thookkanampatti village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District' which are collectively being referred to as 'said temples' are places of public religious worship inter-alia for the benefit of Hindu Community. Therefore, said temples snugly fit into the definition of 'temple' vide section 6(20). This in turn means that said temples are 'religious institutions' within the meaning of section 6(18). As already alluded to supra, TN HR & CE Act is applicable to all Hindu public religious institutions.
18. The obtaining legal position of TN HR & CE Act Page Nos.18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 applies to 'all' Hindu public religious institutions is buttressed by a careful perusal of Sections 3 and 4 of TN HR & CE Act. While section 3 deals with the power of the Government to extend TN HR & CE Act to charitable endowments, section 4 deals with the power of the Government to exempt any religious institution from the provisions of TN HR & CE Act or Rules thereunder. The above means that only with regard to charitable endowments, the Government has to extend all or any of the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder if circumstances set out in section 3 comes into play. To be noted, 'charitable endowments' are different from 'temples' which are 'religious institutions'. As already alluded to supra, 'temple' is defined vide section 6(20) and 'religious institution' which is defined vide section 6(18) includes a temple but 'Charitable endowments' is defined separately vide section 6(5) which talks about property given or endowed for the benefit of Hindu or Jain communities or any section thereof for the support or maintenance of rest houses, choultries, patasalas, etc.,
19. The above obtaining legal position which is clear as daylight from the ecosystem of TN HR & CE Act means that TN HR & CE Act per se applies to all Hindu public religious institutions which includes temples and as regards, charitable endowments, only if it is extended by the Government by way of notification vide section 3. It is clear from the legal architecture of the statute that absent exemption under section 4 or Page Nos.19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 declaration that a temple is a private temple, irrespective of whether a religious institution (temple) finds place in the list to be published by the Commissioner of TN HR & CE Department under section 46 or not, it is a public temple under the sweep of the statute. The reason is TN HR & CE Act provides for appointment of trustees and Fit person for religious institutions (temples) which do not find place in section 46 list also. This is clear from section 49 which provides for jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner appointing Fit persons to religious institutions which are not included in section 46 list. If a temple find place in the list published by the Commissioner under section 46, the Government, Commissioner, Joint Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner are vested with powers to appoint Fit person/s pending constitution of Board of Trustees. If a temple does not find place in the list, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner will have power under section 49 to appoint Fit person.
20. The sum sequitur is, individuals cannot self style themselves as President, Secretary, Treasurer or Administrator of a temple by whatever name called de hors TN HR & CE Act unless there is exemption under section 4. Likewise, a Trust or any other entity cannot style itself to be in administration of a temple de hors TN HR & CE Act. If individuals have any hereditary right or other rights to be in management and administration of a temple, they have to resort to various Page Nos.20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 provisions under Chapter V of TN HR & CE Act and obtain suitable orders from the quasi judicial authority.
21. Therefore, absent exemption under Section 4 or any decree from a Civil Court to the effect that a temple is a private temple, said TN HR & CE Act would apply. In this view of the matter, as there is no material before us to demonstrate that said temples are private temples, though there is an averment in the aforementioned support affidavit that said temples are private temples, we deem it appropriate to suo motu implead the following officials as RR8 to 10 respectively:
(i) The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034
(ii)The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Kottai Mariamman Temple Complex Salem 636 001
(iii) The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Kottai Mariamman Temple Complex Salem 636 001 Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of newly impleaded RR8 to 10 and also consents for having the main WP heard out.' Page Nos.21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021
10. In the light of M.K.Gandhi principle, we now suo motu implead
(a) the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034, (b)the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.64/2, Neela North Street, Nagapattinam-
611001 and (c)the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Netaji Lane (Near Old Bus stand), Nagapattinam-
611001, as respondents 5, 6 and 7 respectively. We issue notice to respondents 5 to 7 and Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader (HR & CE) accepts notice.
11. Taking judicial notice of aforesaid factual matrix in the light of obtaining legal position, we direct respondent No.7 [Assistant Commissioner] to appoint a Fit Person qua said temple within a fortnight from today, i.e., on or before 25.08.2025. In this regard, we make it clear that all rights and contentions, if any, of writ petitioner and other similarly placed persons as regards said temple will stand protected.
Page Nos.22/26https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021
12. As regards certiorari limb, we are not dislodging the impugned advertisement/notice but we make it clear that further action, if any and if that be so, shall be after the writ petitioner's objection dated 17.09.2021, stand of the Fit Person (to be appointed within two weeks from today, i.e., on or before 25.08.2025) are taken into account and a speaking order is made by R2.
13. If said land is temple land, we make it clear that there cannot be any alienation dehors Section 34 of TN HR & CE Act. Therefore, section 34 has to be resorted to if said land turns out to be temple land. If that not be so, i.e., if it is a Government land, further action regarding transfer to Horticulture Department can proceed but without dismantling, demolishing or disturbing said temple in any manner.
14. In the light of the narrative thus far, we make it clear that the Fit Person to be appointed within a fortnight, i.e., on or before 25.08.2025, shall send his objection / representation within another fortnight therefrom, Page Nos.23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 i.e., on or before 08.09.2025 and Respondent No.2 shall consider writ petitioner's objection dated 17.09.2021, stand of the Fit Person and make further orders within another four weeks therefrom, i.e., on or before 06.10.2025. The order so made by second respondent shall be served on writ petitioner under due acknowledgment within seven working days from the date of the order.
15. The captioned Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. In the light of the time lines drawn up, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petitions thereat become otiose and therefore, the same are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (H.C.,J.)
11.08.2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
vvk
Page Nos.24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm )
W.P.No.22037 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Tahsildar,
Vedaranyam,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Thalanayar,
Nagapattinam District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
Vellapallam,
Vedaranyam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
5.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034.
6.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.64/2, Neela North Street, Nagapattinam-611001.
7.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Netaji Lane (Near Old Bus stand), Nagapattinam-611001.
Page Nos.25/26https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm ) W.P.No.22037 of 2021 M.SUNDAR, J., and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., vvk W.P.No.22037 of 2021 11.08.2025 Page Nos.26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/08/2025 06:00:34 pm )