Disposed¶43

Rathinam v. The District collector

Madras HC8 Jun 2026WP/18030/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus under Article 226 seeking removal of encroachments on alleged temple land in Survey Nos. 29/14, 29/27, 29/30, 29/34, Irattai Puliyamarathur, Veerakkal Puthur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District (11 acres); disposed of in terms of earlier order in W.P.No.31137 of 2022 (Tamil Selvan) for judicial uniformity; earlier Bench had held the property is not Government poramboke land and the temple should act against unauthorised occupation; no costs; Madras High Court, Dr. G. Jayachandran J. and N. Mala J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the order passed in the earlier matter (W.P.No.31137 of 2022), with no costs; no independent mandamus granted by this Court. ¶43

Rathinam Vs The District collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the order passed in the earlier matter (W.P.No.31137 of 2022), with no costs; no independent mandamus granted by this Court.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing Respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachments made by Respondents 5 to 13 and other illegal encroachers in Survey Numbers 29/14, 29/27, 29/30 and 29/34 at Irattai Puliyamarathur, Veerakkal Puthur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, to a total extent of 11 acres, in pursuance of the petitioner's representation dated 11/03/2026.

¶29

Court's answer

Since the earlier writ petition (W.P.No.31137 of 2022) seeking similar relief had been disposed of after the filing of the present petition, the Court found it appropriate, for the sake of judicial uniformity and to avoid inconsistency, that the present writ petition be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the earlier matter.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with no costs.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Division Bench of Dr. G. Jayachandran J., author, and N. Mala J.) disposed of Writ Petition No. 18030 of 2026 (Rathinam v. The District Collector, Salem and others) on 08-06-2026. The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 4 (District Collector, Salem; Commissioner, HR&CE, Salem; Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk) to remove encroachments by Respondents 5 to 13 and other illegal encroachers in Survey Numbers 29/14, 29/27, 29/30 and 29/34 at Irattai Puliyamarathur, Veerakkal Puthur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, to a total extent of 11 acres, in pursuance of the petitioner's representation dated 11/03/2026. The Court noted that W.P.No.31137 of 2022 filed by one Tamil Selvan seeking similar relief had been disposed of by a different Division Bench on 06.04.2026, in which it was observed that the subject property is not Government poramboke land and that it is for the temple to initiate appropriate action if temple lands are under unauthorised occupation. Holding that, for the sake of judicial uniformity and to avoid inconsistency, the present petition should be disposed of in terms of the earlier order, the Bench disposed of the writ petition with no costs. The observations in the quoted passage are those of the earlier Division Bench, adopted by reference, and are not independent findings of this Bench.

¶1

WP No. 18030 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶7

Writ Petition No. 18030 of 2026

Rathinam

..Petitioner

The District collector Salem, Salem District.

¶12

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR and CE), Salem.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶15

Kannan

¶16

Pachamuthu

¶17

Radha

¶18

Mohan

¶19

Manickam

¶20

10.Govindan

¶21

11.Samidurai

¶22

12.Perumal

¶23

13.Muthammal

¶24

..Respondents

¶25

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶26

Page1 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 18030 of 2026

¶29

praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 to remove the encroachments put forth in Survey Numbers 29/14, 29/27, 29/30 and 29/34 at Irattai Puliyamarathur, Veerakkal Puthur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District to a total extent of 11 acres made by the respondent Nos.5 to 13 and also other illegal encroachers in pursuance of petitioners representation dated 11/03/2026 within a time frame.

¶30

For Petitioner: Mr.C.Deepakkumar For Respondents Mr.K.Surendar, Government Advocate For R1 to R4

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶33

Writ Petition in W.P.No.31137 of 2022 filed by one Tamil Selvan seeking a similar relief to that sought in the present writ petition, was considered by a different Division Bench of this Court on 06.04.2026 and the same was disposed of with the following observations:

¶34

“The learned Additional Government Pleader based on instructions would submit that a fair price shop has been constructed and the Authorities found that it is a temple land.

¶35

2.Therefore, it is for the temple to set out their claims if any exists. However, the subject property is not Government Poramboke land or the land belongs to the Government and thus, the question of issuing direction to evict the encroachments would not arise at all. However, it

¶36

__________ Page2 of 4

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 18030 of 2026

¶39

¶40

is for the temple to initiate appropriate actions if the temple lands are under un-authorised occupation.”

¶41

2. In paragraph 4.1 of the writ affidavit, the fact of the pendency of

¶42

the earlier writ petition has been disclosed. However, after filing of the present writ petition, the Division Bench has disposed of the earlier writ petition filed for similar relief. For the sake of judicial uniformity and to avoid inconsistency, we find it appropriate that the present writ petition be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the earlier matter.

¶43

3. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶44

(G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 08-06-2026

¶45

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶46

rpl

¶47

¶48