IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.09.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.1620 of 2018 and WMP.No.2036 of 2018 N.Thimmarayappa ...Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Yercaud Main Road, Salem-636 007.

3. The Taluk Executive Magistrate/Tahsildar, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

4. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Salem-1.

5. Ramappa

6. Rajappa

7. Muniappa

8. Narasimhappa

9. Lokesh

10. Venkatamma ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.2796/17/L.R.2 dated 29.12.2017, quash the same and consequentially issue direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give protection to the petitioner to renovate and reconstruct the temple of Arulmigu Karaga Devatha Amman Thirukoil, Singasathanapalli, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District by considering his representation dated 21.06.2017. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondents : Mr.Yokesh Kannadasan, for R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Ravichandran, AGP, for R4 : Mr.R.Bharathkumar, for R5-7, 9 & 10 : Not ready in notice, for R8

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings dated

29.12.2017, in and by which, the 1^st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner to recover the properties belonging to Arulmigu Karaga Devatha Amman Thirukoil, Singasathanapalli, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider his representation dated 21.06.2017 so as to give protection to the petitioner to renovate and reconstruct the temple.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, Arulmigu Karaga Devatha Amman Thirukoil, Singasathanapalli, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District has several vacant lands. In order to maintain the temple and to safeguard the temple properties, the petitioner approached various authorities and with the able assistance of one Mr.A.Radhakrishnan, who is the Founder and President of Thiruthondargal Sabai, the 3^rd respondent visited the temple and sent a detailed report dated 06.06.2017 to the 1^st respondent making recommendations for the appointment of a trustee and for renovation of the temple and the petitioner also made a representation dated 21.06.2017 to respondents 1 to 4 and various other authorities to take appropriate action in line with the report of the 3^rd respondent dated 06.06.2017. Since the said representation did not evoke any response, earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25191 of 2017 and this Court, by order dated 20.09.2017, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the said representation after taking into consideration the report of the 3^rd respondent. Once again, the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent by sending a representation dated 09.11.2017. However, without taking into consideration the report of the 3^rd respondent dated 06.06.2017, the 1^st respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.12.2017, in and by which, the 1^st respondent rejected the petitioner's request. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Though very many grounds have been raised, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the 1^st respondent and the temple authorities to renovate and reconstruct the above said temple as expeditiously as possible.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that, though the petitioner claim that the above said the temple is located in S.No.40/1, it is not so and the same is situated in S.No.28/24, which is classified as Grama natham, with an extent of 13 sq.meters. The 1^st respondent did not give permission to the petitioner to renovate and reconstruct the temple, since, there are two rival groups in the village and