P.Vinayagam Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

P.Vinayagam Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No mandamus or direction to the RDO was issued; the writ petition was disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue a police complaint (for wrongful restraint or other criminal conduct) or a Civil Court injunction (for civil dispute), as applicable.

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent (RDO, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam) should be directed by writ of mandamus to enquire, consider and pass the necessary order on the petitioner's representation regarding the third respondent's interference with his activities as hereditary trustee of the temple.

Court's answer

Upon understanding the grievance, the Court found the matter to be a personal dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent.

Ratio / Principle

The Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer can step in only if there is a breach of peace or law and order.

Key takeaways

If the action of the third respondent amounts to wrongful restraint or any other criminal offense, the petitioner can lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police, who will take action in accordance with the law.ratio¶21
If the action of the third respondent results in any civil dispute, the petitioner will be entitled to approach the Civil Court to obtain an injunction against the third respondent.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J., order dated 21.03.2025) disposed of W.P.No.9205 of 2025, a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by P. Vinayagam, who described himself as hereditary trustee of a Temple, seeking direction to the second respondent RDO (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nagapattinam, to enquire, consider and pass necessary order on his representation concerning interference by the third respondent, P. Kaliyaperumal, whose earlier attempts to stake a claim had been rejected by the courts of law and the authorities. The Court held that the matter was a personal dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent; that the Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer can step in only if there is a breach of peace or law and order; that for wrongful restraint or any other criminal offense the petitioner may lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police; and that for any civil dispute he may approach the Civil Court to obtain an injunction against the third respondent. With this liberty reserved, the writ petition stood disposed of. No costs.

W.P.No.9205 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.9205 of 2025

P.VINAYAGAM

... Petitioner

Vs

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, NO.101, FIRST FLOOR, NAGAPATTINAM - 611 003.

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VELLIPALAYAM, NAGAPATTINAM - 611 001.

P.KALIYAPERUMAL ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent RDO (Revenue Divisional Officer) Nagapattinam to enquire, consider and pass necessary order in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thyagarajan For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Balamurugan Government Advocate

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

1/4

W.P.No.9205 of 2025

ORDER

This writ petition is filed in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent, RDO (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nagapattinam, to enquire, consider and pass the necessary order on the representation of the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the Temple. The third respondent attempted to stake a claim, but all his efforts have been rejected by the courts of law as well as the authorities. However, without any lawful authority, he is interfering with the activities of the petitioner.

Therefore, upon understanding the grievance of the petitioner, it appears that this is a personal dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent. The Collector or the Revenue Division Officicer can step in only if there is a breach of peace or law and order. If the action of the third respondent amounts to wrongful restraint or any other criminal offense, the petitioner can lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police and they will

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

2/4

W.P.No.9205 of 2025

take action in accordance with the law. If the action of the respondent results

in any civil dispute, the petitioner will be entitled to approach the Civil Court

to obtain an injunction against the third respondent.

With the said liberty reserved for the petitioner, this writ petition

stands disposed of. No costs.

21.03.2025

Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl

To

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, NO.101, FIRST FLOOR, NAGAPATTINAM - 611 003.

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VELLIPALAYAM, NAGAPATTINAM - 611 001.

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

3/4

W.P.No.9205 of 2025

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

nsl

W.P.No.9205 of 2025

21.03.2025

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

4/4