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) 40044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
S.K.Sheik Mydeen – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Commissioner/Execu – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P(MD)No.7239 of 2026 S.K.Sheik Mydeen ... Petitioner Vs The Joint Commissioner /

Executive Officer, Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswar Temple, Madurai. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.5580/2026/E1 dated 09.03.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to accept the petitioner as the cultivating tenant in the lands in Survey Nos.72, 98/1 and 86 situated at Keelamathur, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.R.Murali Standing Counsel

ORDER

This petition has been filed to to call for the records of the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.5580/2026/E1 dated 09.03.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to accept the petitioner as the cultivating tenant in the lands in Survey Nos.72, 98/1 and

86 situated at Keelamathur, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being the cultivating tenant of the respondent's property, has a right over the property; however, the respondent has now rejected the tenancy.

3. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the prayer itself is not maintainable based on jurisdiction, coupled with the fact the respondent being the Joint Commissioner of Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswar Temple, Madurai, the petitioner cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative remedy before the Revenue Court is available. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Competent Civil Court/Revenue Court.

07.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No msrm To The Joint Commissioner /

Executive Officer, Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswar Temple, Madurai.

S.SRIMATHY, J.

msrm and W.M.P(MD)No.7239 of 2026

07.04.2026

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