Madras High Court
Veerapathiran vs The District Collector on 4 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P (MD).No.26396 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P (MD).No.26396 of 2024
Veerapathiran ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Musiri Sub-Division,
Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thuraiyur Taluk,
Trichy District.
4.Arumugam
5.Ilamvaluthi ...Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from removing
the Vinayagar Idol installed in petitioner's common patta land in T.S.No.441/5,
441/7, 441/8 and 441/9 of Thuraiyur Town, Trichy District in the light of the
petitioner's representation, dated 18.05.2024 more particularly, within a time
frame as may be stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P (MD).No.26396 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prakash
For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for direction, restraining the
respondents 2 and 3 from removing the Vinayagar Idol installed in the
petitioner's common patta land in T.S.No.441/5, 441/7, 441/8 and 441/9 of
Thuraiyur Town, Trichy District.
2. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he has constructed a house and
residing there for the past several years. It is a large land scape and sub-divided
into 14 house plots, there is a well in existence and the 14 house-site plots have
common right and enjoyment of the well. All the residents had installed a
Vinayagar Idol in front of the well for worshiping the same in several years.
While being so, the respondents 4 & 5 being following Christianity objected
the petitioners and others worship to the Vinayagar Temple. They also lodged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a complaint to remove the Vinayagar idol. Therefore, the petitioner apprehends
that the respondents 1 to 3 are taking steps to remove the Vinayagar idol.
4. Mr.S.Shanmugavel, learned Additional Government Pleader,
appearing for the respondents, on written instructions would submit that for the
very same issue, three persons filed a suit in O.S.No.25 of 2009 before the
District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur for permanent injunction as against the private
defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
Vinayagar Temple. In the said suit, the Civil Court framed issues that whether
the plaintiff has any right to install the Vinayagar idol for worshiping. After
full-fledged trial, the Civil Court found that the plaintiff has also resident
similar to the petitioner and claiming right over the Vinayagar statute and they
have not right over the suit land to install the Vinayagar statute. The relevant
portion of the judgment is as follows:-
"25. jhth fpzw;wpYk; mij Rw;wpAs;s fpzw;W
Nkl;L gFjpapYk; 1 Kjy; 3 thjpfSf;Nfh mtHfspd;
Kd;NdhHfSf;Nfh jdpg;gl;l ghj;jpak; cs;sjhf chpik
Mtzq;fspy; Fwpg;Gfs; vJTk; fhzg;gltpy;iy. MfNt>
thjpfs;> gpujpthjpfs; ngahpy; Vw;gl;l %y chpik khw;w
Mtzq;fspd;gb jhth fpzWk; mij Rw;wpAs;s fpzw;W
gFjpAk; 14 kidfspd; chpikahsHfSf;Fk; nghJtpy;
ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vdTk;> Nkwgb nghJ fpzw;wpy; ePH cs;s
fhyj;jpYk; jq;fs; tPLfSf;F tPl;L cgNahfj;jpw;fhf
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ePH ,iwj;Jf;nfhs;Sk; tifapYk; ePH ,y;yhj
fhyj;jpd;NghJ fpzw;iw J}H thhp ePH ,iwj;Jf;nfhs;tjw;F
14 kidfspd; chpikahsHfSf;F kl;LNk chpikAs;sJ
vdTk;> fpzw;iwAk; mij Rw;wpAs;s fpzw;W Nkl;L
gFjpfisAk; kid chpikahsHfs; ahUk; jdpg;gl;l
Kiwapy; jq;fs; nrhe;j cgNahfj;jp;w;F gad;gLj;jpf;nfhs;s
vt;tpjkhd chpikAk; chpikkhw;w Mtzq;fs; %yk;
Vw;gltpy;iy vd;Nw ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPHT fhz;fpwJ.
30. thjpfs; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l tha;nkhop
kw;Wk; Mtz rhl;rpaj;jpd;gbAk; gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpy;
jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l gp.th.rh.M.12 Mtzj;jpd;gb jhth
fpzwhdJ 14 kidfspd; chpikahsHfSf;F nghJtpy;
ghj;jpag;gl;lJ. thjpfSf;F kl;Lk; jdpg;gl;l Kiwapy;
jhth fpzw;wpd; xU gFjpia jq;fs; trk; itj;J jq;fs;
tpUg;gk; Nghy; tpehafH rpiy itj;J topghL nra;J
tUtjw;F jdpg;gl;l chpikAk; ghj;jpaKk;
thjpfSf;F ,y;iy vd;Nw ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPHT fhz;fpwJ."
5. Therefore, the suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree
dated 01.04.2022. The petitioner, who is also being one of the resident among
14 persons, suppressing the fact filed this writ petition seeking very same relief
as against the respondents 4 & 5, who are defendants in the suit in O.S.No.
25/2009. After having been filed a suit before the District Munsif Court,
Thuraiyur, once agains, the petitioner approached this Court for the very same
relief. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No 04.11.2024
Speaking/Non Speaking order
am
To
1.The District Collector,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Musiri Sub-Division,
Trichy District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thuraiyur Taluk,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
04.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
