Madras High Court
I.Velu vs The Commissioner on 13 March, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.36692 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.36692 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.39594 of 2024
1. I.VELU
2. M.ARUMUGAM
3. S.RAMACHANDIRAN ... Petitioners
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
ADMIN DEPARTMENT,
NO. 119, UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI,
NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
ADMIN DEPARTMENT,
PERAMBALUR DIVISION,
NEAR MADHANAGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE,
PERAMBALUR - 621 212.
3. THE FIT PERSON,
A/M.MARIAMMAN TEMPLE,
COLONY STREET,
CHINNAVENMANI COLONY,
PERIYAVENMANI POST,
KUNNAM TALUK, PERAMBALUR DISTRICT.
ALSO,
THE REGIONAL CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
KUNNAM DIVISION (GRADE-1),
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE
ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:41:10 pm )
1/8
W.P.No.36692 of 2024
NEAR TAHSILDAR OFFICE,
KUNNAM NAGAR AND TALUK,
PERAMBALUR DITRICT.
4. A.KARUPPAN
5. K.ARIVAZHAGAN
6. M.MOOKAN
7. M.SENGON
8. C.SWAMY DURAI
9. A.BALASUBRAMANIAN
10. M.PARAMASIVAM
11. M.BRUNTHA
12. B.CHINNAMMAL
13. P.POONKA
14. R.GEETHA
15. C.MANIKAM
16. M.SAKTHIVEL,
17. K.AZHAGAN
18. V.DURAISAMY
19. S.RAMASUBBU
(R4 to R19 WERE IMPLEADED
BY AN ORDER DATED 13.03.2025 IN
W.M.P.NO. 736 OF 2025 IN
W.P.NO. 36692 OF 2024 BY DBCJ) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for entire records pertaining to order
dated 22.11.2024 of the second respondent made in Se.MU.Na.Ka.No.
2374/2023/A8 and the consequential notice dated 25.11.2024 of the third
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth
For R1 to R3 : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
For R4 to R19 : Mr.S.Ananth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:41:10 pm )
2/8
W.P.No.36692 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 made in Se.MU.Na.Ka.No. 2374/2023/A8 and the consequential notice dated 25.11.2024 in and by which a fit person has been appointed to administer the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple in Colony Street, Chinnavenmani Colony, Periyavenmani Post, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the entire village is divided into nky;ghjp. fPHg; hjp and eLghjp, and the affairs of the temple have been conducted in an amicable manner. However, the impleaded fourth respondent encroached upon a common pathway and when all the villagers questioned the same, he filed an earlier writ petition as if there was a dispute among the sections of people and an order is passed, pursuant to which the fit person is appointed.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that, an application for the framing of a scheme is already pending before the Joint Commissioner in Tiruchirappalli. Therefore, without framing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:41:10 pm ) 3/8 W.P.No.36692 of 2024 the scheme and appointing the trustees, the fit person was appointed based on the erroneous representation of the fourth respondent. There is no dispute among the villagers regarding the administration of the temple.
4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the fourth respondent had earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 17478 of 2024, in which this Court recorded the dispute between the village people in paragraph No. 5 and directed the appointment of a fit person in paragraph No. 6. Accordingly, the fit person was appointed. With reference to the application filed for the framing of a scheme and appointment of trustees, the same will be considered as per the process of law.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent would submit that the entire village is divided into nky;ghjp. fPHg; hjp and the nky;ghjp people are not permitting the fPHg; hjp people to even enter the temple and worship there. The dispute arose in this context. An order was passed by this Court in the earlier proceedings and the fit person was appointed accordingly. The same need not be interfered with by this Court. The allegation that the petitioners encroached upon the common pathway is false, according to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:41:10 pm ) 4/8 W.P.No.36692 of 2024 fourth respondent.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
7. When the fit person has been appointed pursuant to a direction of this Court in W.P.No.17478 of 2024, no exception whatsoever can be taken to the appointment of the fit person. The only contention of the petitioners is that they were not a party to the earlier writ petition and that the facts were not correctly placed before the Court. In any event, even before this Court, an apparent dispute is pleaded. Therefore, pending the resolution of the dispute, there is nothing wrong in appointing a fit person. As far as the claim of the petitioners to administer the temple is concerned, an application has already been filed for the framing of a scheme.
8. The petitioners are ultimately claiming to be members of the existing Dharmakarthas families and are requesting to be appointed as trustees. That application can only be considered in accordance with the law, ignoring the right claimed on behalf of the caste, but considering them as devotees and sons of the Dharmakartha temple. It is needless to mention that while framing the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:41:10 pm ) 5/8 W.P.No.36692 of 2024 scheme, caste can never be the determining factor. The only two factors which should determine while framing the scheme is only mwr; rpe;jid and Md;kpfr; rpe;jif and definitely not $hjp rpe;jid/ The authority shall keep this in mind while framing the scheme. The application pending before the Joint Commissioner shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order without waiting for the certified copy of the order.
9. With reference to the allegation that the fourth respondent has encroached upon any common pathway or poromboke land, the second respondent, Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar, Kunnam Taluk shall conduct a joint survey in the presence of the fourth respondent as well as the petitioners. If there is any encroachment is found and if it is a temple land, the proceeding shall be taken as per Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. If it is the Government Poramboku land, an appropriate action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 shall be taken by the Tahsildar. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:41:10 pm ) 6/8 W.P.No.36692 of 2024
10. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
13.03.2025 1/2 Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl To
1. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMIN DEPARTMENT, NO. 119, UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMIN DEPARTMENT, PERAMBALUR DIVISION, NEAR MADHANAGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE, PERAMBALUR - 621 212.
3. THE FIT PERSON, A/M.MARIAMMAN TEMPLE, COLONY STREET, CHINNAVENMANI COLONY, PERIYAVENMANI POST, KUNNAM TALUK, PERAMBALUR DISTRICT.
ALSO, THE REGIONAL CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KUNNAM DIVISION (GRADE-1), HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NEAR TAHSILDAR OFFICE, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:41:10 pm ) 7/8 W.P.No.36692 of 2024 KUNNAM NAGAR AND TALUK, PERAMBALUR DITRICT.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl W.P.No.36692 of 2024 13.03.2025 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:41:10 pm ) 8/8