Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
A.Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Radhakrishnan (Party-in-person)
For the Respondent(s): Mr.K.Karthikeyan GA (HR & CE), Mr.V.Meghanathan GA (Crl side) R7, Mr.M.Rajendiran AGP RR3 to 6 and 8 to 10
Authorities must timely consider representations on temple property mismanagement under HR&CE Act and pass reasoned orders.
Headnote:First Paragraph: Under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Sections 6(1), 21, 34, 63(a), 64, and 78 impose statutory duties on authorities to protect temple properties from illegal alienation and mismanagement. Petitioner alleged that ancient temple lands, endowed via 1919 gift deed, faced encroachments and unauthorized transfers without sanction, with portions acquired and compensation held by court. Court found authorities bound to act on representations without delay upon notice of threats. Second Paragraph: Key issue framed as whether competent authority must consider representations on temple mismanagement and property threats. Ratio: Statutory duty under the Act mandates timely intervention; court directed time-bound consideration without opining on merits. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed directing 2nd respondent to consider representations dated 03.11.2025 and 23.04.2026, afford hearing, pass reasoned order within six weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks protection of ancient temple properties from illegal alienation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents agree to consider representations lawfully. (Para 4) |
| 3. statutory duty to protect minor temple properties under hr&ce act. (Para 5) |
| 4. direct time-bound reasoned order after hearing; petition disposed. (Para 7) |
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2ndrespondent temple properties and appoint a Fit person and thereby secure and safeguard the 14threspondent temple properties and its administration by considering the petitioner representation dated 03.11.2025 and 25.04.2026
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 14th respondent temple, is an ancient, famous and familiar temple. The origin of the endowment traces back to a registered Gift deed bearing Document No.3945 of 1919 dated 11.02.1919 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Dharmapuri. The temple is a public temple used by devotees and the general public for worship as a matter of right for several decades. It is endowed with various agricultural lands in different survey numbers, intended for its maintenance and for carrying out religious activities. Portions of the endowed lands have been acquired by the Adi- Dravidar Welfare Department. And the compensation amount is presently under the custody of a competent Court. Further, certain portions of the temple lands have been illegally altered, alienated, and transferred without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority as mandated under the HR & CE Act.
Such alienation are void in law.
3. In view of the serious threat to the temple properties and mismanagement, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 03.11.2025 to the second respondent, requesting intervention, protection of temple properties, and appointment of a Fit person. Despite lapse of several months, no action was taken. The petitioner subsequently submitted a reminder representation dated 23.04.2026 to all the respondents, seeking urgent action. The continued inaction has resulted in further risk of illegal encroachments, alienations, and deterioration in the administration of the temple. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents on instructions, submitted that the petitioner's representation will be considered by the 2nd respondent and appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law.
5. The 14th respondent temple is a public religious institution and a minor under Section 6(1and) of the Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act. The authorities are vested with a statutory duty to protect its properties under Section 21, 34, 63(a), 64 and 78 of the Act. When illegal alienation and mismanagement are brought to the notice of the competent authority, it is the statutory duty of the 12th respondent to act upon the same without delay.
6. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
however, the petitioner's representations deserve to be considered and disposed of in a time-bound manner.
7. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioners representations dated 03.11.2025 and 23.04.2026 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.1. The 2nd respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing final orders.
7.2. A reasoned speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner within the time.
7.3. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the 2nd respondent shall take an independent decision based on records and in accordance with the HR and CE Act.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of . No costs.
