Hereditary poojariship not bequeathable by Will; revision under Section 114 HR&CE Act available before writ.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 23.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY G.Sivarenganath ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Sivagangai.

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Vettudayar Kaliamman Temple Ariyakurichi Kalaiyur Kovil Taluk, Sivagangai. 4.S.Kavitha

5.G.Manimegalai ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent in R.P.No.21/2024 D2, quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to recognize and confirm the petitioner's right to perform Poojamurai in the temple as per the established customs and in accordance with the Adoption Deed and Will.

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Madhavan For R1 & R2 :Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader For R3 :Mr.P.Mahendran

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

06.06.2025 passed by the first respondent in R.P.No.21/2024 D2, and to quash the same, and consequently, direct the respondents to recognize and confirm the petitioner's right to perform poojamurai in the temple.

2.On perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the petitioner is claiming hereditary poojariship on the basis of a bequeath made through a Will. Holding that such offices are not hereditary and cannot also be bequeathed through a Will, the request of the petitioner has been dismissed by the order impugned in the writ petition.

3.It can be seen that even if the petitioner is aggrieved as against the order, there is a remedy of revision before the Government under Section 114 of HR&CE Act. Therefore, keeping it open for the petitioner to file such revision within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of web-copy of order, the writ petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that if the revision is filed within a period of four weeks, the same shall be treated as within time and be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the private respondent and any other person should also be heard in the revision that is filed. No costs.