Madras High Court
Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar ... vs The Joint Commissioner on 31 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 29.10.2025
Orders Pronounced on : 31.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.No.39247 of 2024
& WMP.No.45767 of 2025
& WMP.Nos.42508 & 42509 of 2024 & 3567 of 2025
Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar Samudyakudam,
No.1A, Ezhuthukara Street,
Shevapet, Salem -2,
Rep. herein by its President
R.K.Gopinathan, Hindu,
aged about 70 years,
Son of Sri.Krishna Chettiar,
No.185, Appu Chetty Street,
Shevapet, Salem. ...Petitioner in
W.P.No.39247 of 2024
& WMP.No.45767 of 2025
Vs
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Admn. Department,
Salem.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Admn. Department,
Salem.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm )
3.The Special Tahsildar,
Temple Lands, Salem.
4.Parameswaran,
Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Vennangudi Muniyappa Swamy Temple,
Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem.
5.Kalaiselvi,
Executive Officer,
Prasanna Venkatachalapathi Mariamman Temple,
Shevapet, Salem – 2.
6.Uma,
Inspector, Circle 1, Salem.
7.C.Gopinath ...Respondents in
W.P.No.39247 of 2024
& WMP.No.45767 of 2025
Prayer in W.P.No.39247 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, praying to quash the order dated 03.12.2024 made in
Na.Ka.No.10725/2023/A2 passed by the 2nd respondent, directing the
respondents 4 to 6 herein to take over charges of “Arulmigu Natarajar
Bajanai Madam” situated at No.1A Ezhuthukara Street, Shevapet, Salem-
2, from the past Trustees and hand over the same to the 7th respondent
herein and consequently forbearing the respondents from in any manner
taking possession of the premises situate at 1A, Ezhuthukara Street,
Shevapet, Salem-2, belonging to “Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar
Samudyakudam”.
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm )
Prayer in W.M.P.No.45767 of 2025: Writ Miscellaneous Petition filed
to issue an Ad-interim direction, directing the respondents to hand over
the possession of the premises comprised in T.S.No.25/1, 25/2 and 25/3,
Block 6, Ward AB, Salem Town and situated at 1A, Ezhuthukara Street,
Shevapet, Salem – 2, back to the petitioner, pending disposal of the
above W.P.No.39247 of 2024.
(In both Petitions)
For Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran
assisted by Gowwtham Thelak V.B.
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
for RR1 to 3
No appearance for RR4 to 7
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order dated 03.12.2024 in Na.Ka.No.10725/2023/A2 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to consequently, forbear the respondents from, in any manner, taking possession of the premises belonging to Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar Samudaya Koodam.
3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm )
2.Pending the writ petition, an urgent motion was made, brining to my notice that the respondents/officials, with the aid of police officials, have forcibly taken physical possession of the premises from the petitioner. In view of the urgency expressed and in fact, an application already being filed in W.M.P.No.45767 of 2025, seeking an Ad-interim direction to the respondents to hand over possession of the premises of which forcible possession has been taken by the officials, I proceeded to hear the main writ petition itself, along with W.M.P.No.45767 of 2025 for an interim direction.
3.Mr.Sharath Chandran, assisted by Mr.Gowwtham Thelak V.B, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an Association, comprising of members of Thuluva Vellala Community, who are found in large numbers in Salem District and various other pockets. According to the petitioner, Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellalar Samudaya Koodam is in existence for more than 100 years and it has been constructed on the land donated by the members of the said community, though there is no formal document evidencing title, the 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm ) Samudaya Koodam stands on Government Poramboke lands, as reflected in the revenue records. According to the petitioner, the Sadudaya Koodam measures 2170 sq.ft, comprising of two floors and the ground floor is used as a hall for performing various functions for the community members and the 1st floor is used as a dining hall, on a minimum rent being charged from the users, which goes only towards the maintenance of the building.
4.It is the case of the writ petitioner that the said Samudaya Koodam does not house any idol and there is no formal worship of any kind in the said property and thus, the premises has no iota or semblance of being a place of worship, much less a Temple or a Mutt. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that the building is also used by the Government for giving effect to various welfare measures initiated by the State Government. While so, in March 2023, the department officials inspected the building and claimed that it is a religious institution and the property was included in 'ITMS', a software, which serves temple properties. The petitioner has sent a detailed representation on 13.04.2023 to the 2nd respondent, who in turn directed the 3rd respondent 5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm ) by a letter dated 21.04.2023, to conduct an enquiry and delete the name of the petitioner from the software 'ITMS'.
5.It was brought to the notice of the petitioner that even in 1975, based on a report of the Inspector of the department and the VAO, the temple was brought under the purview of HR & CE department. However, according to the petitioner, the said report of the year 1975 pertains to a different survey number altogether and not the petitioner's property. After gathering information, the petitioner came to know that a fit person has been appointed by the 2nd respondent on 23.12.2020 and by a subsequent order, the 7th respondent has been appointed as Trustee, by order dated 13.12.2023. A notice was issued on 01.02.2024, calling upon the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to the 7th respondent, within seven days. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3046 of 2024, challenging the said letter and simultaneously, filed O.A.No.2 of 2024 under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, to declare that the said Sri Natarajar Thuluva Vellala Samudaya Koodam is not a religious institution, as defined under the Act.
6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm )
6.The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 18.03.2024, with certain directions. The operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
“4.In view of the subsequent events, this Court without expressing any view on the merits of the controversy involved, passes the following order:
(i) the First Respondent shall immediately examine the claim made by the Petitioner in O.A. No. 2 of 2024 including ascertaining as to whether the Petitioner would be entitled for the relief claimed;
(ii) if it is found that any other details or supporting documents is necessary, the deficiencies in that regard shall be informed in writing to the Petitioner requiring the same to be furnished within a time frame of not less than 10 days for the same;
(iii) in the event of not being satisfied with the requirements even thereafter, an enquiry shall be conducted affording full opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and all other persons concerned to explain their position in that regard;
(iv) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken communicated under written acknowledgment; and
(v) the report of such compliance shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court.”
7.Subsequent to the said order dated 18.03.2024, no final orders have been passed in O.A.No.2 of 2024. However, the 7th respondent has sent a communication dated 01.10.2024, which was replied to by the 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm ) petitioner on 13.10.2024 and according to the petitioner, at the instigation of the 7th respondent, the 2nd respondent has passed an order dated 03.12.2024, forming a Committee consisting of the respondents 4 to 6, empowering them to take over the charge of the petition building and hand over the same to the 7th respondent.
8.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has no power to pass any such orders, without invoking Section 101 of the Act and when already this Court had directed in W.P.No.3046 of 2024 as early as on 18.03.2024, that an enquiry has to be conducted to determine the status of the petition premises, the impugned proceedings were unenforceable and liable to the quashed.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent has no power to pass the impugned order and if at all the 7 th respondent can be presumed to be the Trustee, even despite the order of this Court in W.P.No.3046 of 2024 and pending O.A.No.2 of 2024 before the 1st respondent, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Salem, even then the 2nd respondent has to necessarily follow the procedure contemplated under Section 101 of the Act. 8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm )
10.Pending the writ petition, the respondents have dispossessed the petitioner and the petitioner has therefore moved this Court in W.M.P.No.45767 of 2025, seeking restoration of possession, by way of an interim direction. Though the writ petition came for admission on 02.01.2025 and the respondents were directed to file counter, the respondents, with the help of police officials, have broken open the premises and taken possession of the same. Even though there is no interim order, protecting the possession of the petitioner, the respondents, in the light of the directions issued in W.P.No.3046 of 2024, should not have precipitated the matter by proceeding to pass the impugned order in the first place and more specifically, when the impugned order has been challenged in the writ petition and the writ petition is pending, the respondents ought not to have forcibly dispossessed the petitioner.
11.Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner has not challenged the earlier orders, appointing the fit person and when the respondents have found that the petition building is a public religious 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm ) institution and there is a deity worship by the public and a Trustee has already been appointed, the present writ petition is vexatious and a futile exercise. It is also contended that there is an alternative remedy available by way of filing an appeal under Section 21(A) of the Act before the 3 rd respondent and further a revision under Section 21 of the Act before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai, and without availing the alternative remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable.
12.The learned Special Government Pleader would further contend that when the writ petitioner claims that they are not a religious institution amenable to the provisions of the HR & CE Act, then it is not open to the petitioner to contend that Section 101 of the Act will have to be followed. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner cannot ride two horses at the same time and the petitioner, being an encroacher of temple property, there is no necessity for the respondents to comply with the mandate of Section 101 of the Act, which is applicable only for Trustees. He would further state that when there was admittedly no interim order, protecting the possession of the petitioner, not only in the writ petition, but also by the order of this Court 10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm ) in W.P.No.3046 of 2024, the respondents cannot be found fault with, for taking possession of the premises from the petitioner. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
13.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
14.It is not in dispute that the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.3046 of 2024 and in the said writ petition, the challenge was to an order directing the petitioner to hand over charge of the Madam to the 7th respondent herein in this writ petition. Taking note of the pendency of an application under Section 63(a) of the Act, this Court called upon the 1st respondent to examine the claim of the petitioner in pending O.A.No.2 of 2024.
15.Admittedly, the said proceedings in O.A.No.2 of 2024 have not been concluded and enquiry is still going on. Firstly, when this Court had specifically directed the respondents, more so, the 2nd respondent to examine the claim of the petitioner, regarding its claim that it is not a 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm ) religious institution and no final decision has been taken and orders have not been passed, the respondents ought not to have hastily proceeded to pass the impugned order. Further, pending this writ petition, the respondents should have certainly respected the matter being subjudice before this Court and awaited further orders, before proceeding to forcibly dispossess the petitioner and take possession.
16.No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, there may not have been any interim order protecting the possession of the petitioner. However, on going through the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3046 of 2024, it is axiomatic that this Court, by directing the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Salem, to dispose of the petitioner's application, regarding its status as a religious institution or not, has impliedly postponed the proceedings regarding handing over the charge of the Madam to the Trustee, the 7th respondent herein. The petitioner has therefore rightly challenged the order impugned in this writ petition, pending enquiry in O.A.No.2 of 2024, before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Salem.
12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm )
17.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in R.Shanmugha Sundaram Vs. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department and others, reported in (1991) 2 MLJ 582, where this Court categorically held that before assuming jurisdiction, the department has to satisfactorily establish that the institution comes under the purview of subsections 16, 18 and 20 of Section 6 of the Act and without doing so, the department cannot presume jurisdiction. The ratio laid down in the said decision was followed up by the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Ram Samaj Vs. The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Chennai and others, (W.A.No.1057 of 2022 dated 27.04.2022), where the Division Bench of this Court, approving the ratio laid down in R.Shanmugha Sundaram's case, held that a fit person can be appointed only for religious institutions and when the question of whether the institution is a religious institution or not falls for consideration, the said issue should have been taken up first by the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner under Section 63 of the Act and ought to have determined whether the institution is a religious institution or not and without doing so, the authorities cannot have proceeded under Section 49 of the Act to appoint a fit person.
13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm )
18.Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Narusu Seetharamaiah and others Vs. Kundurthi Bhaskaranarayana, reported in (1947) I MLJ 198, where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that before passing an order under Section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, notice would have to be issued to all the parties and they should be heard before any order is passed under Section 87 of the said Act and any such order that is passed without hearing the parties, interest would be unsustainable and violation of principles of natural justice.
19.The sheer anchor of defence to the writ petition and the prayer for redelivery of possession, as vehemently put across by the learned Special Government Pleader is that when the petitioner claims to be not a religious institution amenable to the provisions of the HR & CE Act, then the petitioner cannot expect the authorities to comply with Section 101 of the Act. I do not find force in the said submission of the learned Special Government Pleader for the simple reason that it is not the case of the 14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm ) petitioner that since they are a religious institution, the mandate of Section 101 would have to be complied with. It is only their case that since according to the respondents, the petitioner is a religious institution, then certainly they are bound to follow the mandate of Section 101 of the Act.
20.Even though the learned Special Government Pleader characterized the petitioner as an encroacher, from the counter affidavit dated 19.08.2025, I find that at paragraph No.3, the 2nd respondent has recognized the status of the petitioner as past Trustee/s and in such circumstances, it is not open for the respondents to contend that the petitioner is an encroacher and therefore, there is no necessity for the respondents to comply with the requirements of Section 101 of the Act.
21.In any event, as held by this Court in R.Shanmugha Sundaram's case, as approved by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Sri Ram Samaj's case, without determining the status of the petitioner, the very appointment of the fit person/Trustee/Committee is unsustainable. The respondents ought to have awaited final orders in O.A.No.2 of 2024 on 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm ) the file of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Salem, and pending the same, the respondents ought not have arbitrarily and highhandedly proceeded to pass the impugned order and also take physical possession, that too, pending the writ petition.
22.In the light of the above, I am inclined to allow W.P.No.39247 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.45767 of 2025, in the manner following:
(i) The impugned order dated 03.12.2024 in Na.Ka.No.10725/2023/A2 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to redeliver possession of the property, namely petition premises to the writ petitioner, forthwith.
(iii) The 1st respondent shall expedite enquiry in O.A.No.2 of 2024 and after affording a fair opportunity to the petitioner, shall dispose of O.A.No.2 of 2024, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) Pending the final decision of the 1st respondent, the petitioner shall not alter the physical features of the petition premises and shall maintain status quo.
16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm )
(v) It is also made clear that any observations, that have been made in this order herein above, shall not prejudice the 2nd respondent who shall independently decide O.A.No.2 of 2024, on merits and in accordance with law.
(vi) Insofar as W.M.P.No.3567 of 2025, the said petition has been filed to amend the cause title to reflect the respondents 4 to 6 in their official capacity, instead of the individual names. In view of the orders passed herein above, not concerning respondents 4 to 6, no necessity to entertain this amendment petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.
(vii) There shall be no order as to costs. Connected WMP.Nos.42508 & 42509 of 2024 are closed.
31.10.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index:Yes/No ata 17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm ) P.B.BALAJI,J.
ata To
1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Salem.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Admn. Department, Salem.
3.The Special Tahsildar, Temple Lands, Salem.
W.P.No.39247 of 2024 & WMP.No.24767 of 2025
& WMP.Nos.42508 & 42509 of 2024 & 3567 of 2025 31.10.2025 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 08:13:01 pm )