The determination of whether a temple is private or public under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959, is a prerequisite that directly impacts the validity and finalization of a management scheme.

COMMON ORDER

All the three writ petitions relate to Arulmigu Sri Veeriya Perumal Ayyanar Temple, situated at Vembar Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District. Therefore, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.477 of 2024 is that the land in question was originally granted by the Melmanthai Zamin in favour of Pagalam Nadar Vagaiyarah, comprising an extent of 4 Acres and 60 Cents in Survey No.142/2B2 and 1 Acre and 33 Cents in Survey No.222/2. The beneficiaries of the grant are described as “Akathars,” meaning persons entitled to the property. It is further contended that the deities in the temple include the forefathers of the petitioner, and though members of the sambandhi family visit the temple, they are not Akathars. According to the petitioner, only he and his clan members are entitled to administer the temple.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the temple is private in nature. Reliance is placed on the earliest inspection report to substantiate this claim. It is therefore contended that the authorities under the H.R. & C.E. Act erred in framing a draft scheme for the temple. The petitioner has challenged the draft scheme framed in O.A.No.3 of 2003, as well as the orders passed in the appeal and revision therefrom.

4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, in O.A.No.10 of 2025, which is pending before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner (third respondent), seeking a declaration that the temple is a private temple. According to the petitioner, the outcome of the said application would have a direct bearing on the validity of the scheme proceedings.

5. Insofar as the petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.28002 and 30044 of 2024 are concerned, their stand is that the temple is not a private temple and that it falls within the jurisdiction of the H.R. & C.E. Authorities, though certain clans have been conferred specific rights under the draft scheme. It is pointed out that the scheme proceedings initiated as early as in the year 2003 have not yet been finalized. Therefore, W.P.(MD)No.28002 of 2024 has been filed seeking a direction to implement the scheme expeditiously. W.P.(MD)No.30044 of 2024 has been filed seeking a direction to conduct Kumbabhishegam in respect of the temple.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners reiterated their submissions.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the application filed under Section 63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act can be disposed of within a period of four months, if such time is granted, and that the decision therein would resolve the dispute between the parties.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.477 of 2024 submitted that the application under Section 63(a) may be decided first and that, in the meanwhile, though a Fit Person has been appointed to administer the temple, further proceedings towards finalization of the scheme need not be pursued until such decision is rendered.

9. This submission was opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.28002 and 30044 of 2024, who contended that the proceedings, having commenced in the year 2003, cannot be subjected t