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) 5351

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.R.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel For Ms.Surasika, Parthasarathy
For the Respondent: Mr.NRR.Arun, Natarajan, Special Government Pleader, Mr.B.Kumar Senior Counsel For Mr.S.T.Bharath Gowtham –Mr.A.L.Somayaji Senior Counsel For Mr.T.S.Baskaran, Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan
Senior Counsel For Mr.Abhinav Parthasarathy

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 statutory mandates to protect temple interests.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 34 - Alienation of immovable trust property - Auction invalidated due to failure to follow procedural mandates required for sanction - Objections must be sought prior to auction to protect temple property - Decision confirmed by civil court that sale was legally unsustainable. (Paras 62-80)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Court's role as protector of temple property - Individual interests do not override the public interest of the temple’s welfare; illegitimate acquisition of property cannot be condoned. (Paras 72-82)

Facts of the case:
This case revolves around the improper auction of 3.93 acres of temple land in Kadayanallur. The auction held on 19.06.1995 aimed to sell the land but failed to comply with the required legal process, leading to objections. The subsequent confirmation of sale was challenged in court, ultimately leading to the recalls of earlier judgments favoring the auction purchaser.

Findings of Court:
The court established that due process was not followed in the alienation of temple property under Section 34, noting the necessity to prioritize temple interests over private claims.

Issues: The main questions addressed included the procedural irregularities in the auction and the jurisdiction of the HR & CE department in the alienation of temple land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the auction lacked lawful backing due to mandatory requirements being ignored, emphasizing the protective framework of law regarding temple property.

Result: Writ appeal allowed; earlier decision on auction annulled.

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






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