BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN K.S.Chandrasekar ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram, Kanyakumari District.

3. The Tahsildar, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Pudhukadai police station, Pudukadai, Kanyakumari District.

(R-4 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 13.11.2025.)

5. G.Wilson(former Secretary Oothukuzhi CSI Church), S/o.Ganamani, 3/346, Main Road, Sivanthipuram, Vikramasingapuram-627 425, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

(R-5 is impleaded vide order dated 25.11.2025 in W.M.P.(MD)No.26195 of 2025)

6. J.Silvan S/o.K.Jebamani, Secretary, CSI Church, Oottukuzhi, Thenkaipattinam Post, Kanyakumari District.

(R-6 is impleaded vide order dated 25.11.2025 in W.M.P.(MD)No.27055 of 2025) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the Mayiladum Paarai Murugan temple in survey No.218/1 situated in Paingulam Village, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District to its original position forthwith by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondents : Mr.R.Ragavendran, Government Advocate for R1 to R-3.

Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate for R-4.

Mr.K.K.Maheshraja for R-5. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh for R-6.

* * *

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is a resident of Paingulam Village in Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The case of the petitioner is that Murugan statue has been in existence on a hill located in the village for several decades. The petitioner would go to the extent of claiming that it is in existence for more than 100 years. The statue was forcibly taken away by the revenue officials on 24.09.2025.

Seeking reinstallation of the statue, this writ petition has been filed.

3. The impleading petitions have been allowed.

4.There is a church located in the vicinity. Mr.Wilson, the fifth respondent herein is the former Secretary of Oothukuzhi CSI Church. Temoval of Lord Murugan statue had taken place on the basis of the complaint given by Mr.Wilson on 18.08.2025.

5.I wanted to know on what basis, the removal of the statue by the revenue authorities took place. The learned Government Advocate produced a copy of the communication dated 16.09.2025 issued by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District. The direction issued by the District Collector reads as follows:-

6.I have to take a serious view of the action taken by the authorities. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District could not have issued such direction without putting the interested parties on notice. The hill in question according to the writ petitioner, is known as Mayiladum Paarai. Mr.Wilson who is present in person states that the hill does not have any such name. However, the encumbrance certificate as well as the documents filed before this Court clearly refer the hill as “Mayiladum Paarai”. Mr.Wilson would state that the word HMS inscribed on the hill refers to “Sudhesa Missionary Sangam “HMS” affiliated to Kanyakumari CSI Diocese. In support of this claim, he produced a copy of the pamphlet dated 21.11.1980 and inscription dated 29.05.1988. HMS according to him is Home Missionary Society. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced a copy of the Certificate of Registration of Societies indicating that a society in the name of “Kanyakumari District Hindu Mission Society” (HMS) was registered on 26.10.1979 (Serial No.27 of 1979). Whether HMS refers to Hindu Mission Society or Home Missionary Society is a matter of controversy. Unless enquiry is held, it cannot be decided either way.

7.It is also seen that a complaint was lodged way back in

1981 that the statue of Murugan had been unlawfully removed. That gave rise to the registration of FIR (Crime No.9 of 1981 on the file