O R D E R

B.PUGALENDHI, J., The petitioner / party-in-person has made a representation to the authorities on 25.04.2019 and on 07.09.2020 stating that the properties belonging to the 18th respondent temple are not maintained properly and are being encroached. Alleging that the said representations did not evoke any response, he has moved this petition.

2. Taking cue from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.A.Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Others [Appeal (Civil)

No.3135 of 2007], the petitioner submitted that not only the Government and / or the Board of Trustees, but also the Devotees should be vigilant to prevent any encroachment on temple lands. By relying upon the decisions of this Court in P.Lakshmanan v. Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and Others [W.P.(MD)No.14428 of 2017] and in V.Muthusamy v. Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and Others [W.P.(MD)No.16833 of 2017], the petitioner submitted that despite very many orders passed, nothing has moved and therefore, prayed for appropriate orders.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.A.Gopalakrishnan's case (supra) has observed as follows:-

“10. The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their Trustees/Archaks/Sebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of 'fences eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. (emphasis supplied)”

4. In P.Lakshmanan's case (supra), this Court has issued the following directions:-

“20. ... ... ...

b. The 5th respondent shall prepare and file a report specifying the details of the temple lands in Tamil Nadu for which patta has been granted to third parties/encroachers within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

c. The 6th respondent shall instruct all the Tahsildars or District Revenue Officers as the case may be, to take steps to alter the patta granted to the beneficiaries of illegal transfer of land or possession and restore the name of the temple with further direction to refrain from issuing patta without getting written communication from the HR & CE department related to the temple lands and such process shall be commenced within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

d.The details/particulars regarding the properties/lands owned by the said Public Religious Institutions/temples have to be collected as contemplated under Section 29 of the HR & CE Act and must be published in the Official Website of the HR & CE Department, forthwith and a report to that effect shall be filed before this Court not later than four weeks from today;

e. The 5th respondent shall within four weeks, file a report disclosing the lands, the details of the sanction granted by him for alienating the properties of the temples in Tamil Nadu either by way of sale, exchange or mortgage or lease beyond five years with the copy of the approval obtained from the Government and the report of objections from the trustees or interested parties as contemplated under Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959;

f. The 5th respondent shall constitute a committee/committees for each territories / regions and direct the members to visit all the temples in Tamil Nadu, identify the lands belonging to and in the custody of the temple and in the h