IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, N. SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
K.G. Krishnan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Commissioner And Secretary To Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment – Respondent
W.A.No. 1536 of 2014, C.M.P.No. 149 of 2024, in Rev.Appl.Sr.No. 124199 of 2023, C.M.P.No. 13568 of 2025, in Rev.Appl.Sr.Nos.87579 of 2025, C.M.P.Nos. 10671, 15993, 15203, 15876 of 2025, 17343 of 2017, W.A.No.1536 of 2014, W.A.No. 1536 of 2014
Decided On : 15-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial overview of proceedings and orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the property in question and historical context. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. sale process details and initial objections. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court decisions regarding the sale and grounds for objections. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. subsequent developments and legal challenges to the sale. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. legal findings on land ownership and rights. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 7. the role of state government in temple property management. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. legal arguments from both parties regarding property sales. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. consideration of alternative arguments and objections. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. implications of statutory provisions on property transfer. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
W.A.Nos.1535 and 1536 of 2014 had been disposed on 23.03.2018. As against the same, R.Subramanian and S.Vaidiyanathan approached the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No.11046 of 2025 and S.L.P.(C) No.21088 of 2025 on the ground that the disposal of the Writ Appeals had been without reference to C.M.P.Nos.16314 of 2018 in W.A.No.1535 of 2014 and C.M.P.Nos.16315 and 16316 of 2018 in W.A.No.1536 of 2014 that had had been pending before the Court at the relevant point in time.
2. The Supreme Court ultimately passed orders on 21.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 in the SLPs, directing the Division Bench of this Court to hear the Miscellaneous Petitions. The Miscellaneous Petitions were heard on 17.06.2025 and the following order was passed:
C.M.P.No.13402 of 2025 has been filed by the present Managing Trustee of the Temple seeking impleadment in C.M.P.No.16315 of 2018 in W.A.No.1536 of 2014. All the respondents as well as other counsel in this batch of petitions would accede to the position that he is a necessary party. Hence and for the reasons set out in the accompanying affidavit, C.M.P.No.13402 of 2025 is ordered.
2.C.M.P.No.16315 of 2018 filed seeking to recall the order dated 23.03.2018 in W.A.No.1536 of 2014 is allowed. As a consequence, order dated 23.03.2018 passed in W.A.No.1536 of 2014 is recalled.
3.C.M.P.Nos. 16314 & 16316 of 2018 are dismissed.
4.Heard in part. List on 23.06.2025 as a first item after admission and miscellaneous work.
5.The complete records in possession of the HR & CE Department in relation to this temple from the year 1994, including the balance sheets will be produced.
3. It is hence that the order passed on 23.03.2018 in W.A.No.1536 of 2014 came to be recalled and the said Writ Appeal came to be listed afresh before us. We have also accepted the plea for impleadment, allowing CMP.No.15993 of 2025 filed by 57 persons, C.M.P.No.15203 of 2025 filed by 32 persons and C.M.P.No.17343 of 2017 filed by 2 persons.
4. We have heard the detailed submissions of Mr.R.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Surasika Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1536 of 2014 and R1 in C.M.P.Nos.149 of 2024, 15203, 15876, 10671, 13568 and 15993 of 2025, Mr.NRR. Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) for R1 to R4 in W.A.No.1536 of 2014 and R2 to R5 in C.M.P.Nos.149 of 2024, 15203, 15876, 10671, 13568 and 15993 of 2025, Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.T.Bharath Gowtham, learned counsel for R5 in W.A.No.1536 of 2014 and R6 in C.M.P.Nos.149 of 2024, 15203, 15876, 10671, 13568, 15993 of 2025, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel for R6 in W.A.No.1536 of 2014 and R7 in C.M.P.Nos.149 of 2024, 15203, 15876, 10671, 13568 and 15993 of 2025, Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Abhinav Parthasarathy, learned counsel for R7 in W.A.No.1536 of 2014, R8 in C.M.P.Nos.15203, 15876, 10671 and 15993 of 2025, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.R.S.Diwaagar, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.M.P.No.149 of 2024, Mr.A.Velan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.SMA.Jinnah, learned counsel for th
















Dr.Subramanian Swamy V. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Air Line Pilots’ Association of India v Director General of Civil Aviation &Others
K.Kumara Gupta v Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple and Others
Bharat Singh and Others v State of Haryana and others
M.Ramanatha Pillai v The State of Kerala and another
The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd v Sipahi Singh and others
Budhia Swain and others v Gopinath Deb and others
Casio India Company Private Limited v State of Haryana
Union of India and others v Dileep Kumar Singh
J.R.Raghupathy and others v State of A.P. & Others
Mohd.Shahabuddin v State of Bihar & Others
Prabodh Verma and others v State of Uttar Pradesh and others
The auction of temple property was rendered invalid due to significant procedural violations under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutor....
The court ruled that the lease of temple property was unjustifiable due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and lack of necessity, emphasizing the prioritization of temple interests over pu....
A lease for temple property must demonstrate necessity and benefit to the deity; merely augmenting income is insufficient and procedural violations render the decision unjustifiable.
The court ruled that temple property cannot be alienated by trustees without obtaining necessary permissions and demonstrating community consent as per applicable law.
The requirement of prior sanction for sale of temple properties under the TamilNadu Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959, and the legal principle that an agreement to sell does not....
Procedural irregularities in public lease transactions do not invalidate the purpose when the object serves public welfare.
Transactions involving temple properties without the knowledge of the temple authorities and the HR&CE Department are not binding, and the HR&CE Department has the authority to protect temple propert....
(1) Auction Sale of Land – After public auction is held and highest bid is received and property is sold in a public auction in favour of a highest bidder, such a sale cannot be set aside on the basi....
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.