Dismissed¶45

Krishnamoorthy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Rdo)

Madras HC9 Jun 2026WP/21453/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus DISMISSED (Madras HC, 09-06-2026, W.P. 21453/2026, Jayachandran & Mala JJ.). Alleged temple-tank renovation/compound-wall encroachment on Kulam Poramboke Survey No.75/2, Naval Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai found factually incorrect; petitioner's lands Survey Nos.82/2 & 82/4 accessed via alternate public pathway, not through temple land Survey No.76; HR & CE / Jambukeswarar Temple, Arasangkuppam, Vengalathur; Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905; Article 226; representation dated 13.04.2026; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed, with clarification that the temple's right to protect its land in Survey No.76 cannot be faulted, and 'No costs.' ¶45

Krishnamoorthy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer (Rdo) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed, with clarification that the temple's right to protect its land in Survey No.76 cannot be faulted, and 'No costs.'

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the Jambukeswarar Temple office-bearers' tank-renovation works, alleged illegal extension of the temple structure and proposed compound wall constitute unauthorised encroachment upon the Kulam Poramboke land in Survey No.75/2, Naval Village, and complete blocking of the pathway. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

On the affidavit, the photographs in the typed set and the report of the Inspector, HR & CE Department, Cheyyar, the allegations of the writ petitioner that the temple authorities encroached upon the Kulam Poramboke land comprised in Survey No.75/2 at Naval Village are factually incorrect.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The ingress and egress of the petitioner's land in Survey Nos.82/2 and 82/4 is not through Survey No.76, although he had been using that land as a pathway in the past.

¶6

Key takeaways

The temple land had remained unprotected because no earlier steps were taken to prevent its use as a pathway; now that protective steps are being taken, the petitioner has become aggrieved and filed the writ petition in an attempt to continue such unauthorised use.ratio¶6
The right of the temple to protect and safeguard its land comprised in Survey No.76 cannot be faulted.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. G. Jayachandran & N. Mala, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 21453 of 2026, decided 09-06-2026 - Krishnamoorthy v. Revenue Divisional Officer and others. Petitioner, claiming ownership of land adjoining the Kulam Poramboke land in Survey No.75/2, Naval Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to remove the alleged unauthorised construction, illegal temple extension, compound wall and encroachment by the Jambukeswarar Temple's person-in-charge, restore the Kulam Karai pathway giving access to his lands in Survey Nos.82/2 and 82/4, and initiate action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 on his representation dated 13.04.2026. Considering the affidavit, photographs and the report of the Inspector, HR & CE Department, Cheyyar, the Court held the encroachment allegation factually incorrect; the petitioner's ingress and egress is not through temple land Survey No.76 (he had merely used it as a pathway earlier and now has an alternate public pathway), and the temple's right to protect and safeguard Survey No.76 cannot be faulted. Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

¶1

WP No. 21453 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶7

Writ Petition No. 21453 of 2026

Krishnamoorthy

..Petitioner

The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Cheyyar Division, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶12

The Tahsildar Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶13

The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR and CE) Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶15

The Block Development Officer (BDO) Cheyyar Block, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶16

The Inspector of Police Cheyyar Taluk police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶17

__________ Page1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 21453 of 2026

¶20

Karthikeyan Representative / Person-in-charge, Jambukeswarar Temple, Arasangkuppam, Vengalathur, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶21

..Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the unauthorized construction and encroachment made by the respondents 7 to 11 in the Kulam Poramboke land comprised in Survey No.75/2, Naval Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, remove the illegal temple extension and compound wall, restore the Kulam Karai pathway for free ingress and egress to the petitioner’s land in Survey Nos.82/2 and 82/4 and consequently direct the respondents to initiate action under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, based on the representation dated on 13.04.2026 .

¶23

For Petitioner: Mr.G.Palani Kumar For Respondents: Mr.B.Sivakollapan Government Advocate For R1, R2 & R5 Mr.Veerabathran Prasanth.M Standing Counsel (HR & CE) For R3 and R4

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

The writ petitioner, claiming to be the owner of land adjacent to Survey

¶27

No.75/2, Naval Village, Tiruvannamalai District, has approached this Court alleging that the 7^th respondent, representing the Jambukeswarar Temple, is renovating the temple tank and proposes to construct a compound wall, thereby obstructing a common pathway used by the villagers.

¶28

__________ Page2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 21453 of 2026

¶31

2. According to the petitioner, the Jambukeshwar temple is situated

¶32

near water tank (kulam). Under the guise of renovating the tank, the officebearers of the temple are allegedly extending the temple structure illegally and arbitrarily, encroaching upon the Kulam Poramboke land and constructing a compound wall, thereby completely blocking the pathway.

¶33

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department submitted that Survey No.75/2 comprises the Kulam, whereas Survey No.76 belongs to the temple. The HR & CE Department has undertaken renovation works in respect of both the tank and temple. In order to protect the temple property, a compound wall is proposed to be constructed. The petitioner and other villagers have access to their lands through alternative routes and have no right to trespass upon the temple property.

¶34

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the bund of the tank has been used as a pathway by the villagers for a long period and the construction of a compound wall on the temple land would completely obstruct access from the tank bund to the petitioner's land. The aerial map of the location and the photographs of the tank enclosed in the typed set of papers clearly show that the tank and the adjoining lands are open to sky. He further

¶35

Page3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 21453 of 2026

¶38

submitted that the temple land comprised in Survey No.76 and the public tank comprised in Survey No.75/2 are distinct and separate properties.

¶39

5. The report of the HR & CE Department clearly indicates that the villagers, who were previously using the temple land as a pathway, are now using an alternate public pathway to access their lands, except for the writ petitioner, who continues to claim a right of passage through the temple property.

¶40

6. On considering the averments made in the affidavit, the photographs enclosed in the typed set of papers and the report of the Inspector, HR & CE Department, Cheyyar, this Court finds that the allegations of the writ petitioner that the temple authorities have encroached upon the Kulam Poramboke land comprised in Survey No.75/2 at Naval village is factually incorrect. The ingress and egress of the petitioner's land in Survey Nos.82/2 and 82/4 are not through the Survey No.76, though he had been using the said land as a pathway in the past. The temple land remained unprotected since, no steps had earlier been taken to prevent such use. However, now that steps are being taken to protect the temple property, the petitioner has become aggrieved and has filed the present writ petition in an attempt to continue such unauthorized use.

¶41

__________ Page4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

WP No. 21453 of 2026

¶44

¶45

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that

¶46