SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2557

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, S. SRIMATHY, JJ.
M. Parthipan - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.A.(MD) No.2357 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.16337, 16739, 16740, 16741, 16743, 16744, 16745 of 2024, 624, 4436, 4645 of 2025
Decided On : 08-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. J. Anandhavalli, Mr. J. Anandkumar, Mr. S. Muthukumar, Mr. Pandiyarajan, Mr. U. Antony Santhosh, Mr. K. Kumaravel, Mr. A.L. Kannan.
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Ashok Additional Government Pleader, Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan.

Administrative rights over a religious institution cannot be claimed based solely on location; established management must be respected.

Headnote:

(A) Management and Preservation of Properties of Religious Institutions Rules, 1964 - Rule 54 - Writ of Mandamus - Challenge to the formation of Thiruppani Committee for temple reconstruction - Petitioner claimed right to administer temple based on location; however, it was established that the temple is managed by Pachaloor villagers - Court upheld prior findings regarding temple administration and denied petitioner's inclusion in the committee. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 8)

(B) Legal Standing - The court emphasized that mere location of the temple does not confer administrative rights to nearby villagers without legal backing - The petitioner's claims were deemed illegal as they lacked proper legal foundation. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to form a committee for the reconstruction of a demolished temple, asserting rights based on its location in Aalapiranthan village, despite established management by Pachaloor villagers. The temple, rich in history and architecture, was demolished without proper authority. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had no legal standing to claim administration rights over the temple, which was confirmed to be managed by the villagers of Pachaloor. The court directed that the Thiruppani Committee be formed according to existing rules. (Paras 5, 6, 10)

Issues: The main issues included the legal rights of the petitioner to administer the temple and the legitimacy of the Thiruppani Committee's formation. (Paras 5, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative rights over the temple cannot be claimed based solely on its location, and the established management by Pachaloor villagers must be respected. The petitioner's claims were rejected as they lacked legal basis. (Paras 5, 6, 10)

Result: Writ appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the order, dated 26.03.2024, passed in W.P.(MD)No.28087 of 2022.

2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to form a Thiruppani Committee to expedite the reconstruction of the demolished Temple (Arulmighu Kazhani Udaiya Ayyanar alias Pannirendu Ayyanar and Sri Pathira Kaaliyamman Temple) situated in S.No. 6/1 comprises of 0.67.0 hectare in Aalapiranthan Revenue Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District, excepting persons who indulge in demolition of temple on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 05.12.2022.

3. The brief facts as stated by the writ petitioner are that long ago, the aforesaid temple was under the control of the King of Tanjore and now, is under the control of HR & CE Department. The temple contains ancient sculptures, Artha Mandapam, Maga Mandapam etc. with fine architecture. Also consists of main statues (suyambu form) inside the temple and other ancient monuments such as the statues of Ayyanar, Poorani, Pushkalai etc. Based on research the Archaeological Department states that this temple belongs to 18-19th century. The main devotees of this temple are from villages such as Kanjiranvayal, Aalapiranthan, Karaiyapatti, Karuvadachery, Pachaloor, Kunnoor, Melur, Allampatti, Pallathivayal, Pariveeramangalam, Thulavoor, Perumalpatty Colony, Thaanchur, Naykarpatti, Vennaamazhiyenthal, Vediyangudi, Perunavaloor worship Lord Ayyanar as their “Kulathevam” (Clan God Temple). The festivals such as Sivarathiri and Chithirai Pournami are celebrated every year in a grand manner and during this festivals, Vanangamudi Pandarathaar Vagayara were being cherished in token of respect. The above said temple itself owns many lands. Inspite of so much glory this ancient temple was not at all maintained properly and small cracks were formed but was not noticed. Having knowledge about the glory some persons from Pachaloor Village had intentionally demolished the temple without even asking the people of the other villages and concerned authorities of HR&CE Department. Hence the petitioner submitted representation to the 3rd respondent dated 27.04.2022 requesting to permit them to construct a new temple in the old place for their satisfaction and for the devotional needs of the people belonging to more than sixteen villages. While submitting the petition the petitioner had attached the photocopies of the old temple for reference purpose. In reply to the same, the 3rd respondent communication in Na.Ka.No. 1306/2015/El dated 02.05.2022 had stated that on 29.04.2022 the Inspector and Assistant Engineer HR & CE had inspected the place and got to know about the demolition of the temple. Further, enquired the people of Pachaloor village and direction is issued to take action against the persons demolished the temple. Further directed to preserve the elephant statue and other idols of the temple. After consulting with the Regional Heritage Committee, High Court Committee appointed by the High Court and other concerned persons steps would be taken to do Thirupani along with the cooperation of the villagers. While that being so, some persons of Pachaloor village cleared the place without intimating to the HR & CE Department. Hence the 3rd respondent had preferred complaint to the Inspector of Police, Aranthangi. It is further stated Rs.9,80,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Eighty Thousand only) was approved for the reconstruction of the above said temple. Thereafter, the petitioner further submitted another representation to the 3rd respondent dated 01.08.2022 requesting for the formation of "Thiruppani Committee" in order to reconstruct the temple, but no action was taken, hence another representation dated 05.12.2022 was submitted for forming "Thiurppani Committee". In the second representation it was insisted that the persons who were involved in the demolition of temple, they sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top