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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1

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

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam, Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, Mr.B.Prasannavinoth, for Mr.R.Rama Guru, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan and Mr.P.Thambi Durai Government Advocates

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 status quo pending resolution.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Revision Petitions seeking directions for expeditious disposal of interlocutory applications in suits relating to temple property involving issues of encroachment and title rights - Where the trial court's failure to rule on applications is challenged, and scope for expedited intervention exists under Article 227 - Petitioner claims title through sale deeds; respondents maintain property is temple land - Emphasis on lawful eviction and due process adherence requested - Court reasserts directive for timely resolution of injunction applications and status quo maintenance until final decisions are reached. (Paras 1-27)

(B) HR & CE Act - Section 79(2) relevant for determining the maintainability of title claims regarding temple properties - Court underscores distinction between encroachments and lawful tenants, reiterating the procedural obligations of the HR & CE Department. (Paras 10-25)

(C) Maintenance of records and responsibilities of HR & CE Department highlighted; necessity for decisive actions against unauthorised occupants reiterated throughout proceedings. (Paras 28-36)

Findings of Court:
The trial court is mandated to decide on pending injunction applications within three months and complete suits within six months while maintaining status quo prior to these decisions.

Issues: Maintainability of petitions under HR & CE Act, encroachment definitions, urgency in eviction processes.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court recognizes the petitioners' presumptive rights as per HR & CE provisions while delicately balancing them against property management by the temple.

Result: Civil Revision Petitions disposed with directions.

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

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