An administrative order regarding revenue land entries is liable to be quashed if it suffers from inconsistency and fails to address the merits of temple land records while a related appeal is pending.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.M2/901438/2023 dated 26.08.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the entries in the revenue records in respect of Survey Nos. 238/1,251, 277 to 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, and 290 and other survey numbers that stood in the name of Swami Rama Parameswar in Mukaani Village, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District, in the name of Swami Ramaparameswarar Temple, and retrieve the lands to temple.

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.M2/901438/2023 dated 26.08.2025 and consequently, to direct the respondents to restore the entries in the revenue records in respect of Survey Nos. 238/1,251, 277 to 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, and 290 and other survey numbers that stood in the name of Swami Rama Parameswar in Mukaani Village, Eral Taluk, Thoothukudi District, in the name of Swami Ramaparameswarar Temple and retrieve the lands to temple.

2. The petitioner is a devotee of the said temple. The contention of the petitioner is that the above said Survey Nos. 238/1, 251, 277 to 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, and 290 belongs to the temple. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition before the respondents to restore the said lands in the name of the temple. After hearing the petitioner, the official respondents have passed the impugned order. However, they declined to restore the patta in the name of the temple. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3.The primary contention of the petitioner is that even in the impugned order, the respondents have stated that the patta No.443 was standing in the name of Swami Rama Parameswar and 46 other persons. But finally the respondents have concluded that the petitioner has not stated to which temple it belongs to. This Court is of the considered opinion the order is an inconsistent order. When the respondents have stated that the patta stands in the name of Rama Parameswar and 46 other persons, it is evident that the land belongs to the Rama Parameswar temple.

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even the temple has preferred an appeal, dated 03.08.2023 before the DRO and the same is pending.

5.Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the DRO who shall hear the case of afresh along with the appeal filed by the Temple and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law. While considering the appeal, the official respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as to the temple and other rival claimants, if any, and thereafter consider and pass orders in accordance to law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.