Allowed

S.a.Palanisamy, v. Arulmigu Arthanareeswarar Temple

Madras HC23 Feb 2024WMP/4728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A third party sought impleadment as respondent in a writ petition concerning temple lands allegedly alienated by poojaris and later acquisition proceedings. The court, with no objection from the government pleader, allowed the petition and directed amendment and listing for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner impleaded as third respondent; Registry directed to amend the writ petition and list it on 06.03.2024.

S.a.Palanisamy, Vs Arulmigu Arthanareeswarar Temple — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.M.P. No.4728 of 2024 in W.P. No. 34594 of 2023

¶2

W.M.P. No.4728 of 2024

¶3

in W.P. No. 34594 of 2023

¶4

R. MAHADEVAN, J AND

¶5

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J

¶6

(Order of the Court was made by R.Mahadevan, J)

¶7

This petition has been filed by the petitioner / 3^rd party to implead himself as third respondent to the writ proceedings.

¶8

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition that the HR&CE Department has failed to recover the lands belonging to Arulmigu Vinayagar Temple, Kailasampalayam and Arulmighu Mariamman Temple, Sengodampalayam, which were illegally alienated by the Poojaris of the temples. Aggrieved by the same, the trustees of the temple along with the Village people filed a suit seeking for declaration and permanent injunction against the poojaris and the same was decreed on 31.03.1992 in favour of the temple. Challenging the same, the poojaris preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed. Pursuant to the same, the poojaris preferred a second appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2004. While so, the second respondent without getting proper permission from the the HR&CE Department, confirmed the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the holdings of the temple, stating that the compensation

¶9

1/3

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

W.M.P. No.4728 of 2024 in W.P. No. 34594 of 2023

¶12

had been deposited and passed the order dated 10.11.2023, which is the impugned herein. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein has filed a writ petition in WP.No.50 of 2024 seeking to forbear the second respondent from taking any coercive action insofar as S.No.115/2 and S.No.116 Kailasampalayam Tiruchengode Namakkal District admeasuring an extent of 4.76 acres and the same was disposed of, on the ground that the said impugned order was already challenged by the first respondent. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner being a worshipper, is interested in protecting the holdings of the temple and hence, he is a necessary party to the writ petition.

¶13

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

¶14

stated no objection in ordering this petition.

¶15

Having regard to the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit and

¶16

considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, this miscellaneous petition is ordered as prayed for.

¶17

Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the writ

¶18

petition and post the matter for hearing on 06.03.2024.

¶19

¶20

[R.M.D., J] [P.D.A., J] 23.02.2024

¶21

2/3

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.M.P. No.4728 of 2024 in W.P. No. 34594 of 2023

¶24

R.MAHADEVAN, J AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J

¶25

¶26

W.M.P. No.4728 of 2024 in W.P. No. 34594 of 2023

¶27

Dated: 23.02.2024

¶28

3/3

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.a.Palanisamy, v. Arulmigu Arthanareeswarar Temple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.a.Palanisamy, v. Arulmigu Arthanareeswarar Temple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rangarajan Narasimhan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

People for Dharma Trust Vs The Commissioner

Rangarajan Narasimhan Vs The Chief Secretary to Govt

M.Karthikeyan Vs Smt.v.Vidyavathi IAS and 5 others

R.Venkataraman (Pip) Vs S.Sunderrajan

V.Veliangiri Vs Tk.v.Muralidharan IAS