Madras High Court
Ganesan Sankaran vs The Executive Officer on 18 April, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.7315 of 2023
1.Ganesan Sankaran,
President/ Hereditary Trustee of
Arulmighu Neelakanda Pillayar Temple,
Neelakandapuram, Peravoorani Taluk,
Thanjavur District-614 804.
2.Kuppamuthu Sankaran,
Hereditary Trustee of
Arulmighu Neelakanda Pillayar Temple,
Neelakandapuram, Peravoorani Taluk,
Thanjavur District-614 804. .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Executive Officer,
HR & CE Department,
Arulmighu Neelakanda Pillayar Temple,
Neelakandapuram,
Yendhal, Peravoorani Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pattukottai,
Thanjavur District.
___________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
3.The Tahsildar,
Peravurani Taluk, Peravurani,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Peravurani Police Station,
Peravurani, Thanjavur District.
5.P.Chezhiyan .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing respondents 1, 2, 3
and 5 from interfering with the rights of the petitioners as Hereditary
Trustees of Arulmighu Sri Neelakanda Pillayar Temple at
Neelakandapuram Village, Endal, Peravoorani Taluk, Thanjavur District
in the guise of Peace Committee Meetings or implementing the minutes
recorded there at on 01.04.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
For RR2 to 4 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj
Special Government Pleader
For R5 : Mr.Ramesh Mahadev
___________
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus forbearing
respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 from interfering with the rights of the
petitioners as Hereditary Trustees of Arulmighu Sri Neelakanda Pillayar
Temple at Neelakandapuram Village, Endal, Peravoorani Taluk,
Thanjavur District in the guise of Peace Committee Meetings or
implementing the minutes recorded there at on 01.04.2023.
2. It is necessary to briefly touch upon the facts, which have
constrained the petitioner to approach this Court. It is the case of the
petitioner that Arulmighu Sri Neelakanda Pillayar Temple at
Neelakandapuram Village, Peravoorani Taluk, Thanjavur District, is an
ancient temple, which has been established by the petitioners' ancestors.
By an order dated 18.05.1929, the Board of Commissioners for Hindu
Religious Endowments, as it was then known, had declared the temple to
be an excepted temple. Thereafter, the Board had settled a scheme of
administration for the temple in exercise of its powers under Section 57
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. One of the salient features of
the scheme was that the temple and its properties would be administered
subject to the provisions of the scheme by one or more trustees (not
exceeding three) appointed by Act II of 1927 and the Executive Officer
appointed by the Board under the provisions of the scheme.
3. The petitioners would submit that their ancestors were the
trustees of the temple for time immemorial. One Sri Perian Sankaran was
the Trustee for over 50 years. After him, Sri Chinna Sankaran served as a
Trustee for 20 years and therefore, it was only the Sankaran family who
had been in the exclusive management of the temple. The petitioners are
the legal descendants of this group.
4. In the year 1949, when the Board settled a scheme of
administration for the temple, the Board by mistake had spoken about
non-hereditary Trustees. Before finalisation of the scheme, the Trustees
were not heard. Therefore, the hereditary Trustees filed O.A.No.14 of
1963 to declare their right as hereditary Trustees. The said application
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
was dismissed against which an appeal petition in A.P.No.14 of 1966 was
filed which also ended in a dismissal. The hereditary Trustees had
thereafter filed a suit in O.S.No.38 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Thanjavur. After a detailed trial, the suit was decreed declaring
Sri Perian Sankaran and Subban Sankaran as the hereditary trustees of
the temple. This judgment and decree was not challenged and has
attained finality.
5. Thereafter, O.A.No.194 of 1975 was filed before the Deputy
Commissioner for modification of the scheme to give effect to the
judgment in O.S.No.38 of 1968. Instead of complying with the decree,
as provided under Section 64(5)(a) of the Act, the said application was
dismissed against which A.P.No.76 of 1974 was filed. The
Commissioner allowed the appeal and the matter was remanded back to
the Deputy Commissioner, who once again dismissed the application.
Against which the hereditary Trustees had filed A.P.No.107 of 1979
before the Commissioner. The Commissioner had dismissed the appeal
against which a suit in O.S.No.35 of 1982 was filed before the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai. After a serious contest by the
Department and the Executive Officer of the temple, the suit was decreed
on 26.08.1983. This judgment and decree was taken up on appeal by the
Commissioner and the Executive Officer in A.S.No.139 of 1986 on the
file of this Court. The appeal was dismissed by judgment and decree
dated 09.09.1999 against which only the Executive Officer, viz., the first
respondent herein had filed L.P.A.No.46 of 2000 before a Division
Bench of this Court. This appeal was also dismissed by judgment and
decree dated 13.03.2001. Once again it was only the Executive Officer
who had challenged the decree before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P.(Civil) CC.No.7065 of 2001. The same was dismissed on
08.10.2001. As a result, the right of the petitioners as hereditary Trustees
and having the right to administer and manage the temple had attained
finality. Ultimately, the orders were given effect to by Gazette
Notification dated 25.02.2020, after which the petitioners had assumed
office.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
6. It is the case of the petitioners that for all official purposes, their
names are printed along with that of the Executive Officer where it
involves a public auction or matters relating to the administration of the
temple. During the COVID pandemic, the annual celebrations of the
temple was not held for the years 2020 and 2021. The hereditary
Trustees are entitled not only to administer the temple, but also to
conduct the festivals of the temple. After the lockdown was lifted for the
year 2022, it was decided to conduct the annual festival. When the
petitioners had published invitation showing their name as hereditary
Trustees, the same was objected to by a member of a political party and
all of a sudden, a Peace Committee Meeting was convened by
respondents 2 and 3 on 16.03.2022 and 26.03.2022 and in the guise of
passing resolution, the petitioners were prevented from printing their
name in the invitation. This was challenged by the petitioners by filing
writ petitions before this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.5943 and 5994 of 2022.
Then the festival had also started and had concluded.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
7. The Chithra Pournami festival for this year is scheduled to be
held from 26.04.2023 to 07.05.2023. When the petitioners printed the
invitation for the festival showing their name, the member of the
legislative assembly belonging to the ruling party once again puts spokes
which led to the third respondent issuing a notice calling upon the
petitioners to participate in a Peace Committee Meeting. The petitioners
could not participate in the meeting on 01.04.2023 and they had
requested postponement of the meeting. However, the third respondent
went again with the meeting and passed resolution which went against
the rights of the petitioners as hereditary Trustees. The third respondent
has passed a resolution that the names of the petitioners cannot be
printed in the invite. It is aggrieved by this act, that the petitioners
before this Court.
8. The respondents had not filed any counter, but had only filed
certain documents and made their submissions.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
9. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
reiterated the contents of the affidavit and submitted that by conducting
Peace Committee Meeting, respondents 1 to 3 were attempting to
circumvent the orders passed by the civil Court, which have been upheld
right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further submit that the
resolution arrived at in the Peace Committee Meeting does not have any
statutory value or force and no reliance can be placed upon the same. He
would submit that it is only the fifth respondent at the behest of the
powerful person, who is trying to scuttle the rights of the petitioners.
10. The learned Government Advocate and the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the officials respondents would
contend that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners on
the allegation of breach of trust, misappropriation of properties owned by
the temple and they are acting adverse to the interest of the temple.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent
would submit that one Aravindhan, has filed a writ petition in
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
W.P.(MD) No.26938 of 2022 as a Public Interest Litigation to remove the
encroachments in S.Nos.151/1, 151/3 and 151/4 measuring about 2.46.50
Hectares, which originally belonged to the temple and to dismiss the
hereditary Trustees for their breech of trust, misappropriation of
properties etc. He would further submit that this writ petition was
disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider and dispose of
the representation of the petitioner therein and this representation is now
under consideration by the Commissioner, HR & CE Board. He would
refer to the letter sent by the Joint Commissioner to the Commissioner
wherein the Joint Commissioner had stated that the petitioners have
encroached into the properties of the temple and that the encroachment
has to be removed and that the petitioners are enjoying the rents that are
due to the temple. Therefore, he has recommended for an enquiry under
Section 53(2) of the Act. The learned counsel would further
emphatically submit that the petitioners are going to be removed from
their post as hereditary Trustees and therefore, the relief sought for by
them should not be granted.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
13. The facts of this case bring to the fore the absolute apathy
displayed by the public authorities to the orders of the Court and their
attempts to please certain vested interest. In the case on hand, the
petitioners have had not one but two orders of a civil Court reiterating
their position as hereditary Trustees and their right to administer and
manage the temple. This being the case, the authorities particularly
respondents 1 to 3 have encouraged strangers to intermeddle in the
affairs of the temple and thereby using it to hold a Peace Committee
Meeting to pass orders contrary to the judgments and decrees of the civil
Court. This trend cannot be allowed to perpetuate. The petitioner has
shown proof that in all other official communications, their names have
been added and they have been described as the hereditary Trustees.
14. While so, there is absolutely no explanation as to why their
names should not feature in an annual festival of the temple in which
temple, they are today the hereditary Trustees. The allegation that
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners for an alleged
mismanagement requires a relook. These proceedings against the
petitioners have been initiated on the basis of an alleged writ petition
filed by one Aravindhan. Incidentally, the learned counsel who appears
for the fifth respondent herein is the very same counsel who has appeared
for the petitioner in the said writ petition. The said writ petition has been
disposed of without notice to the petitioners herein, who have been
arrayed as respondents 3 and 4 in the said writ petition. The Division
Bench of this Court has simply disposed of the writ petition stating that it
is for the authorities to dispose of the representation and the Bench was
also cautious in stating that if an encroachment is found, the same has to
be removed only after affording opportunity to the parties concerned and
after following due process of law. This, by no stretch of imagination,
can be stated to be proved about the allegations put forward by the writ
petitioner therein. The communication, which is being referred to is also
merely a percussor for initiating proceedings under Section 53(2) of the
Act and an allegation which is rebuttable. Therefore, as on date, there is
no impediment for allowing the writ petition. The fifth respondent is
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
totally a stranger to the administration and management of the temple
and he cannot prevent the hereditary Trustees from functioning till such
time as he continues to remain hereditary Trustee. Therefore, this writ
petition is disposed of as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.04.2023
(2/2)
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
abr
To
1.The Executive Officer,
HR & CE Department,
Arulmighu Neelakanda Pillayar Temple,
Neelakandapuram,
Yendhal, Peravoorani Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pattukottai,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Peravurani Taluk, Peravurani,
Thanjavur District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
4.The Inspector of Police,
Peravurani Police Station,
Peravurani, Thanjavur District.
W.P.(MD) No.7899 of 2023
Dated: 18.04.2023
(2/2)
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
