Madras High Court
K.Radhakrishnan @ Moorthy vs T.Balan on 24 November, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)NO.2116 OF 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9818 of 2021
K.Radhakrishnan @ Moorthy :Appellant/Third Respondent
.vs.
1.T.Balan
2.A.Narasimman
3.A.Rajasimman :Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners
4.The Tahsildar,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Dindigul. :Respondents 4 and 5/
Respondents 1 &2
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.13234 of 2019, dated 6.7.2021.
For Appellant :Mr.T.Selvan
For Respondents :Mr.M.Siddharthan
3 and 4 Addl.Govt.Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned
Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.13234 of 2019, dated 6.7.2021.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.In the Writ Petition, the proceedings of the Peace
Committee Meeting, dated 30.05.2019 was challenged. There was
a dispute between the two factions with respect to the name of
the temple in Dindigul District. According to the Writ Petitioners,
the name of the temple should be Sri Kathir Narasinga Perumal
Temple, V.Mettupatti whereas, the appellant, who was the third
respondent in the Writ Petition, states that the name of the temple
should be Sri Kathir Narasinga Perumal Koil, V.Kovilpatti. Even in
the Peace Committee Meeting, both the parties could not come to a
consensus. The parties were directed to get the dispute resolved
in a Court of Law. Till such time, the existing name ie., Sri Kathir
Narasinga Perumal Kovil,V.Mettupatti should continue. The Writ
Court has also found that the temple in question is a non-listed
temple under the control of the HR and CE Department. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE, Madurai has named the temple
as Sri Kathir Narasingaperumal Kovil, V. Mettupatti and the said
name is in existance right from the year 1960 onwards. In all the
registers also, the same name has been mentioned. Once the
temple is under the control of the HR & CE Department, the name
given by the authorities would continue. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge had quashed the proceedings of the Peace Committee
Meeting and directed to restore the name board of the temple as
Sri Kathir Narasingaperumal Kovil, V.Mettupatti. The appellant
before us is challenging the said order stating that once if the
village name is mentioned as V.Mettupatti in the name board, the
Kovilpatti people are not allowed to worship in the temple. We see
no such argument addressed before the learned Single Judge. The
allegation that V.Kovilpatti village people are being ex-
communicated because of the change in the name is also not
proved. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
he was not given an opportunity to file counter and his arguments
were not extracted in the order. If that is so, he could have
preferred a Review Petition before the learned Single Judge. Even
in the appeal also, the learned counsel has not pressed into service
any document to show that the temple is really named as
V.Kovilpatti and the same should continue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.As the temple is under the control of HR and CE
Department, the fifth respondent is directed to ensure that both
the factions are allowed to worship in the said temple peacefully,
till such time they resolve their respective rights in the manner
known to law.
5.In view of the above discussion, the Writ Appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is dismissed.
[P.S.N.,J.] [P.V.,J.]
24.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Tahsildar,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.2116 OF 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9818 of 2021
24.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
