BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
K.Lakshmi - Petitioner
Vs
Arulmigu Balasubramaniya Swami Temple Devasthanam Vennaimalai - Respondent
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.3632, 3678 to 3689, 3696, 3707, 3708, 3723, 3750, 3760, 3771, 3783, 3807, 3814, 3822, 3878, 3888, 3889, 3890, 3891, 3892, 3893, 3907 to 3910 of 2025, 108 and 114 to 129, 317, 362, 363, 364, 378, 385, 402, 403, 428, 435, 524 to 526 and 567 to 570 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.19234, 19465 to 19476, 19517, 19556, 19557, 19634, 19744, 19795, 19857, 19904, 20045, 20089, 20128, 20347, 20391, 20392, 20395, 20396, 20397, 20398, 20426, 20427, 20428, 20429, of 2025, 493, 542, 548, 543, 546, 547, 549, 550, 551, 552, 554, 557, 559, 545, 553, 555, 556, 1660, 1661, 1666, 2287, 2288, 2289, 2566, 2564, 2567 and 2568 of 2026
Decided On : 27-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil revision petitions overview and context. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioners' arguments on entitlement and encroachment. (Para 7) |
| 3. court's observations on maintainability and hr & ce act. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. common issues highlighted for all civil revision petitions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's directive concerning injunction applications. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. historical context of encroachments and prior court directions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. court's ruling on maintaining status quo and handling of suits. (Para 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. final directive regarding the resolution of the case. (Para 26) |
ORDER :
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The above batch of Civil Revision Petitions have been filed seeking a direction from this Court to direct the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur, to dispose of their injunction applications within a stipulated period, as may be prescribed by this Court.
2.As the prayers as well as the facts in all these Revision Petitions are one and the same, by consent of all parties, the above Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of, by way of this common order.
3.For the easy reference, this Court proposes to discuss the facts in C.R.P(MD)No.3632 of 2025, which are as follows:
4.The petitioner claims title over the property situated at S.No.238/2, Kathaparai Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District to an extent of 2768½ by way of a sale deed, dated 24.11.2017. Thereafter, the respondent Department has issued a notice to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act and initiated proceedings before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Tirupppur, alleging that the petitioner has encroached the temple property and after conducting summary enquiry, an order, dated 17.11.2022, came to be passed directing the petitioner to vacate the premises.
5.Challenging the said order, a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P(MD)No. 25821 of 2025 and batch were filed before this Court and this Court, vide order, dated 22.01.2025, had disposed of the said Writ Petitions with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Civil Court on or before 24.02.2025. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.301 of 2025 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Karur, under Section 79 (2) of the HR & CE Act. It is also to be noted that in the suit, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 for temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants 1-5 and their men from disturbing the petitioner/plaintiff's peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the petition mentioned property/suit property of the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit.
6.During the pendency of the suit, the fourth respondent herein has issued another notice, dated 28.08.2025, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises on or before 29.09.2025 failing which, they will evict the petitioner with the help of the revenue and police officials. In such circumstances, as no order has been passed in the application filed by the petitioner for temporary injunction by the trial Court, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed for a direction to direct the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur, to dispose the application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.301 of 2025 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.
7.The learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners in the above batch of Civil Revision Petitions made the following submissions:
7.1)The lands in questions were notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963 and on the date of notification, the entire land was notified and vested with Government of Tamil Nadu as per Section 3 of Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963 and no other person has any title or right over the property.
7.2)Pursuant thereto, after issuing notice to the parties concerned, pattas were granted under Section 8(1) of the Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963, on 31.08
Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 directed the trial court to expedite injunction applications regarding temple property disputes, emphasizing lawful eviction processes and maintenance of st....
Legal ownership disputes of temple lands must consider established titles and compliance with regulatory frameworks.
The HR & CE Department has jurisdiction to enforce rent collection from property tenants, and appellants’ claims of ownership without evidence fail to substantiate their appeal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.