SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 39081

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Selvam – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.9487 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Muniyandi
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader, Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

Writ court cannot direct revenue authorities for temple renovation without prior civil declaration of private status or HR&CE permission.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to grant permission for renovating a temple claimed as private property. The court examined the petitioner's representation asserting exclusive rights and traditional worship practices by the trust. The court determined that claims of private ownership require a civil court declaration, while public temple renovations fall under HR&CE authorities' jurisdiction, referencing prior Division Bench directions to approach District and State Level Committees. The core issue was whether the Revenue Divisional Officer could grant renovation permission without prior clarification of the temple's status. The ratio decidendi holds that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass civil courts for private temple declarations or HR&CE procedures for public temples, as revenue authorities lack jurisdiction over such matters. The writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to approach civil court or HR&CE authorities.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for temple renovation permission. (Para 1)
2. petitioner claims private temple; respondents advise civil court. (Para 2 , 3)
3. approach civil court or hr&ce for temple status and permission. (Para 4)
4. writ dismissed; liberty to pursue appropriate forums. (Para 5)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 08.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P(MD)No.9487 of 2026 Selvam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Office, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

4.Subburaj ...Respondents Writ Petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to give permission for renovation of temple namely Arulmigu Sri Udhiramada Ayyanar Temple situated at Thottilovanpatti Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, based on the petitioner's representation dated

27.01.2026.

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Muniyandi For R1 & R2 :Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For R3 :Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing this second respondent to give permission for the renovation of the temple namely Udhiramada Ayyanar Temple situated at Thottilovanpatti Village, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, based on the petitioner's representation dated

27.01.2026.

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the representation, it can be seen that the petitioner is claiming exclusive rights over the temple by projecting it as a private temple.

3.According to the learned Special Government Pleader, if it is a private temple, then the petitioner has to approach the civil Court and get a declaration to the said effect.

4.On the other hand, some of the averments in the representation goes on the footing that traditionally the petitioner and the other members of their trust and association have been doing the pooja and other practices in the temple. If that is so, they have to approach the HR&CE authorities who are granting permission for renovation / rebuilding of the temple. Already detailed directions has also been issued by the Division Bench of this Court to approach the District Committee and the State Level Committee and only after obtaining the due permissions, any renovation of the temple can be undertaken.

5.In view of the above, the prayer in the writ petition to direct the revenue divisional officer to grant permission cannot be countenanced and as such, the writ petition is disposed of by keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to either approach the civil Court or the HR&CE authorities for the said purpose. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top