Legal ownership disputes of temple lands must consider established titles and compliance with regulatory frameworks.

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 of the temple and the service holders as service inam, with certain conditions. However in violation of the said conditions, the lands have been sold to various persons and this appellant is said to have purchased the subject lands in the year 2003 and 2004. The patta was changed in the name of the appellant. However pursuant to the direction of this court in WP(MD)No.64 of 2018, dated 23.10.2019, the Additional District Magistrate / District Revenue Officer, Karur by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.C3/9012/2013, dated 27.07.2020 has cancelled the patta issued in the name of the appellant and others. This order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the District Revenue Officer, Karur has not been challenged by the appellant and the same became final. The appellant and few others admitting the ownership of the temple land have made a request on 10.06.2020 to the Commissioner, HR and CE Department to permit them to retain the properties by regularising their possession under Section 34 of the HR and CE Act. They claim that they are running business establishment and they are bonafide purchasers of the properties and therefore, they can be considered sympathetically. Since the same has not been considered by the Commissioner, they have approached this court by way of a writ petition in WP(MD)No.7864 of 2020 to consider their representation. This court in WMP(MD)No.5 of 2021 in WP(MD)No.7864 of 2020 by order dated 09.02.2021 directed the Commissioner, HR and CE Department to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of eight weeks. The commissioner by his proceedings dated 31.05.2021 rejected the request of this petitioner that it cannot be regularised by way of sale. However the Commissioner directed the Joint Commissioner to consider their case for tenancy by fixing fair rent. As against the order passed by the Commissioner, HR and CE Department, the appellant and others have approached the Government by filing a revision petition in the year 2024 under Section 114 of the HR and CE Act and the same was also rejected by order dated 04.12.2024.

3.Pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Additional District Magistrate / District Revenue Officer, cancelling the patta standing in the name of the appellant, the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Subramaniya Swami Thirukovil, Vennaimalai filed an application in the year 2020 under Section 78 of the HR and CE Act. Though the appellant was issued summons in the said proceedings, he did not attend the enquiry and therefore, an ex-parte order was passed on 26.11.2021. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order and it was allowed on 22.12.2022 and he was provided an opportunity in the enquiry. The appellant again has not appeared. However his counsel has filed a vakalath