The court maintains that while traditional worship on government poramboke land may be permitted, the construction of permanent structures on such land constitutes an unauthorized encroachment that must be removed by administrative authorities.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.06.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Dhanabalan ... Petitioner Vs

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

3.The Thasildar, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

4.The Village Administrative Officer, Piramanoor Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

5.Murugan ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2026 to conduct enquiry and consequently direct the authority to ensure the peaceful worship in the petitioner's family temple namely Melakovil Sri Karuppaswamy Temple, situated at Piramanoor Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vijayaraja For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban Government Standing Counsel for R1 to R4 Mr.S.Sankar for R5

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed with a prayer of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2026 and to conduct the enquiry and consequently, direct the authority to ensure peaceful worship of the petitioner's family deity, namely, Melakovil Sri Karuppaswamy Temple, situated at Piramanoor Village, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent is in unauthorized occupation of the poramboku land and has now fenced the land only to prevent the petitioner as well as the other devotees of the said temple from going around the temple and worshipping the temple. According to the petitioner, since the entire extent of the land is classified as porumboku land, the fifth respondent has no right to erect such fencing.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent would submit that both the land under the occupation of the fifth respondent as well as the temple referred to by the petitioner are situated on poramboke land. It is further contended that the petitioner had put up a temple in the year 2023 on a pathway intended for public use, therefore obstructing the common pathway available to the general public.

4. The learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the representation will be taken up by the third respondent for consideration. Upon making the site inspection, the land belonging to the government will be secured in the manner known to law and unauthorized constructions, if any, will be removed.

5. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:

(i) The petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2026 shall be taken up for consideration;

(ii) Apart from the representation of the petitioner, the third respondent shall inspect the site either by himself or through subordinates and remove all the unauthorized construction, including the fencing, and secure the land belonging to the government;

(iii) If the poramboku land is traditionally used for temporary worship, the same shall be permitted to continue; However, no permanent structure by any person shall be permitted;

(iv) If the temple or any new construction is put up in the poramboke land, the same shall be removed, and only the original deity, whatever the manner of worship, shall be retained.

(v) No costs.