Thirupathisamy Vs The Commissioner

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 3017/2025/A4 dated 18.06.2025 and quash the same.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Niveditha

¶24

For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.S.Madhavan Additional Government Pleader

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing

¶27

the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶28

Along with this Writ Petition, Writ Petition in W.P(MD) Nos.18225 and

¶29

18226 of 2025 also have been filed before this Court challenging the respective impugned communication dated 18.06.2025 and the details of which are given

¶30

below.

¶31

S.No.	Writ Petition No.	Reference No.	Date
1	18224 of 2025	Na.Ka.No.3017/2025/A4	18.06.2025
2	18225 of 2025	Na.Ka.No.3021/2025/A4	18.06.2025
3	18226 of 2025	Na.Ka.No.3031/2025/A4	18.06.2025

¶32

2/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.18224 of 2025

¶35

The content of the above said impugned communications are identical

¶36

except the extent of the property in a survey number. For the shake of clarity,

¶37

the impugned communcation, dated 18.06.2025 which has been challenged in

¶38

this Writ Petition is extracted here under:

¶39

3/7

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.18224 of 2025

¶42

The petitioner claims to be a hereditary poojari of the subject temple namely Arulmigu Kadir Narasinga Perumal Temple, Ambhadurai Village, Athur Taluk, Dindigul District. The petitioner's wife was the hereditary trustee of the said temple and against whom, a proceedings have been initiated under Section 78 of TN HR and CE Act, 1959 and hence, her trusteeship was suspended on 17.08.2024 on the allegation that she had allowed encroachment over the temple property and collecting rents. Subsequently, she had also been removed from trusteeship on 29.11.2024 under Section 53(2) of Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act, 1959.

¶43

The petitioner himself has claimed to be a hereditary poosari, though such a right is not avilable as per section 55(2) of said Act. It is the specific case of the petitoner that since the petitioner's wife was removed from trusteeship on 29.11.2024, the petitioner's son was entitled to step in under Section 54 of Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act, 1959. The application to that effect is pending before the Joint Commissioner.

¶44

It is submitted that the petitioner has suffered by an adverse order under Section 79 of Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act, 1959 passed by the Joint

¶45

4/7

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.18224 of 2025

¶48

Commissioner on 05.04.2025, pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 27.08.2024 in W.P(MD) No.19094 of 2024.

¶49

It is submitted that the petitioner has filed three revision petitions under Section 21 of Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act, 1959 before the first respondent / the Commissioner on 26.04.2025 along with stay petitions. However, these revision petitions, which have been numbered as R.P.No.204 to 206 of 2025, have not been taken up for hearing by the Commissioner.

¶50

Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in possession of the temple property over a period of time and considering the fact that the revision is pending before the Commissioner since 26.04.2025, which have been numbered as R.P.Nos.204 to 206 of 2025, there shall be a direction to the respondents to keep the impugned proceedings in abeyance pending disposal of the stay petition.

¶51

The Commissioner shall also endeavor to pass an appropriate order in the stay petition in R.P.Nos.204 to 206 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible. The continuance of possession by the petitioner over the Will, he subjects to such

¶52

5/7

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD).No.18224 of 2025

¶55

orders as may be passed by the Commissioner.

¶56