Appellants challenged the recall of a HR&CE order permitting deletion of lands from the temple's property register. The single Judge held the title issue required determination by a civil court after trial. The Division Bench agreed that contentious facts of title cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 W.A.(MD)Nos.648 & 649 OF 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)Nos.648 & 649 of 2022
N.Vanitha Sanjay ... Appellant / Petitioner in W.A(MD)No.648 of 2022 M.Senthilkumaran ... Appellant / Petitioner in W.A(MD)No.649 of 2022
Vs.
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to allow the writ appeals and set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.22729 & 22785 of 2018 dated 13.04.2022 on the file of this Court.
1/5
2 W.A.(MD)Nos.648 & 649 OF 2022
(in both W.As.)
For Appellants : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For R-1 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, Additional Government Pleader. For R-2 : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
property belongs to the appellants or the second respondent temple.
the second respondent temple. The Commissioner, HR&CE vide communication dated 17.06.2017 permitted the Executive Officer to delete the said lands from the property register. This was subsequently recalled by the succeeding Commissioner and, in our view, is rightly so. This recall order was put to challenge in W.P. (MD)Nos.22729 and 22785 of 2018. The learned single Judge vide
order dated 13.04.2022 dismissed the writ petitions in the following https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5
3 W.A.(MD)Nos.648 & 649 OF 2022
terms:-
“53.This issue has to be determined only by a Civil Court after a proper trial. Therefore, the 2nd respondent Temple cannot be forced to delete the survey numbers if there are no records to substantiate that the claimants had indeed complied with the terms of the proceedings of the Settlement Tahsildar, dated 15.05.1972.”
out their rights before the jurisdictional civil Court. No costs.
(G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.) 12th March 2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU
3/5
4 W.A.(MD)Nos.648 & 649 OF 2022
To:
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai – 34.
4/5
5 W.A.(MD)Nos.648 & 649 OF 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
PMU
W.A.(MD)Nos.648 & 649 of 2022
12.03.2025
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can decide the title dispute over the subject property claimed by the appellants against the temple.
N.Vanitha Sanjay
M.Senthilkumaran
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai - 34.
The Executive Officer / Deputy Commissioner, Arulmighu Subramania Swami Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram, Madurai.
G.R.Swaminathan
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
