Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.VELMURUGAN, B.PUGALENDHI
M.Sivasamy – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner purchased land designated for temple use but faced eviction due to failure to comply with legal regulations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. the court evaluated petitions contesting eviction orders based on prior land ownership claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. the court acknowledged mismanagement of temple properties necessitating legal compliance by possessors. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. petitioner attempted to negotiate lease terms while contesting previous legal rulings on their property. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. the judgment directly concluded with the dismissal of all writ appeals due to lack of merit. (Para 19) |
COMMON ORDER :
These writ appeals are arising out of the common order dated 03.07.2025, passed by the writ court in WP(MD)Nos.5906, 5916, 5918 and 5917 of 2025 respectively.
2.The appellant Sivasamy is running shops and a factory in the name of Shobika Impex Private Limited, manufacturing insecticide mosquito nets, in S.Nos.570, 574 and 577 of Aathur village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District. These lands belong to the Arulmigu Balasubramanya Swami Temple, Vennaimalai, Karur. Though the lands are in the name of temple, pattas were issued during the settlement period in the name
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.
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....
Illegal sublease of religious institution land without proper authority and notice violates Section 34 of the HR and CE Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of civil remedies while affirming its decision not to interfere with eviction orders under the HR and CE Act.
Authority must avoid unjust cancellation of property rights without valid reasons, emphasizing the necessity for resolution of title disputes in civil courts as mandated by law.
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....
Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes, requiring resolution in civil court; decisions must include sufficient reasoning to uphold property rights.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
